20517 replies to this topic

[FireSlade]

Diego Angelus, on 07 December 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Because we will have more and more mechs with same hardpoint layout.

So? HP layouts are not really as important to some as you may think. I know a lot of people that would rather pilot their favorite iconic mech even if it does not follow the meta. If we got the Rifleman tomorrow do you think people will ***** that all it is a 5 ton lighter Jagermech? My bet would be that 99% would throw money at PGI for it and the other 1% will say that star citizen is so much better and quit anyways.

[Diego Angelus]

SgtMagor, on 07 December 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

peeps may want to use the best variant all the time, but there are lots of peeps who like a change of pace don't mind a challenge every once in a while so I think all mechs deserve a chance to be in the game.

Why not make mechs more restricted that way we get that challange and more mechs that make sense.

Edit:

Too me layout is very immportant if one mech is better then other but both has same HPs then i won't consider using inferior chassis.

Edited by Diego Angelus, 07 December 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[Odanan]

Diego Angelus, on 07 December 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Why not make mechs more restricted that way we get that challange and more mechs that make sense.

Sized Hardpoints... I'm with you bro.

[Whatzituyah]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

[/size]
Sized Hardpoints... I'm with you bro.

Thats what made classic MechWarrior have more variety I miss that.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Drawing straight lines require more skill than drawing curvy ones...

Anyway, I would prefer an equal amount of mechs for each class than any arbitrary number based on the Dev's imagination.

actually just requires owning a ruler. Or using the line tool in photoshop- aka, crutches.

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

A great number of chassis listed on Sarna have nothing to do with our timeline. Once I had the trouble to count the timewise chassis and Assault had more different mechs than Medium.

I agree the mediums are the most common weight class fielded in IS. But they don't have necessarily more different chassis.

And no, MWO has nothing to do with that. People will play with which is the most efficient.

And using the tables for the SLDF 'mech as of 2750 - well before most of the 'Mechs anyone would recognize were even designed - is deceptive.

For example, why not use the 3025 LCAF table (pg. 13 of the FA&RT) instead? They heavily favor heavier designs, and anything they had as of 3025 would be fair game for 3050 (provided a sufficient number of variants were developed and deployed as of 3050), especially since its identical to the 3039 LCAF table (pg. 30 of the FA&RT) in terms of which chassis are listed.

LCAF 3025/3039 Medium 'Mechs (20 chassis):

• Vulcan
  
• Sentinel
  
• Cicada
  
• Assassin
  
• Clint
  
• Hatchetman
  
• Centurion
  
• Blackjack
  
• Whitworth
  
• Trebuchet
  
• Wyvern
  
• Enforcer
  
• Phoenix Hawk
  
• Hunchback
  
• Shadow Hawk
  
• Wolverine
  
• Crab
  
• Dervish
  
• Griffin
  
• Gladiator

LCAF 3025/3039 Heavy 'Mechs (18 chassis):

• Rifleman
  
• Champion
  
• Quickdraw
  
• Merlin
  
• Ostroc
  
• Ostsol
  
• Orion
  
• Warhammer
  
• Crusader
  
• Thunderbolt
  
• Bombardier
  
• Marauder
  
• Guillotine
  
• Archer
  
• Catapult
  
• Grasshopper
  
• Black Knight
  
• Flashman

LCAF 3025/3039 Assault 'Mechs (14 chassis):

• Charger
  
• Cyclops
  
• Longbow
  
• Zeus
  
• Victor
  
• Banshee
  
• Golaith
  
• Striker
  
• Awesome
  
• BattleMaster
  
• Stalker
  
• Highlander
  
• King Crab
  
• Atlas

Even the Lyrans, with the greatest proportion of heavier machines (on average, ~50% of the LCAF 'Mech forces would be Heavies and Assaults) and the greatest number of regiments as of 3050 (indicating that they would have most likely had a greater number of individual 'Mechs than the other factions) would still have generally had greater chassis variety within the Medium class than each the heavier classes.

As far as in-MWO, we already have three 50-tonners (Centurion, Hunchback, and Trebuchet) and we're about to have four 55-tonners (Kintaro and Shadow Hawk, plus Griffin and Wolverine).

If PGI wanted to have Medium 'Mechs be the most commonly played 'Mechs (in addition to the most numerous chassis type), they would need to somehow either (or both) incentivize playing Mediums or disincentivize playing Lights & Heavies & Assaults.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 07 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

And using the tables for the SLDF 'mech as of 2750 - well before most of the 'Mechs anyone would recognize were even designed - is deceptive.

Guilty as charge!

Strum Wealh, on 07 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

If PGI wanted to have Medium 'Mechs be the most commonly played 'Mechs (in addition to the most numerous chassis type), they would need to somehow either (or both) incentivize playing Mediums or disincentivize playing Lights & Heavies & Assaults.

Agreed!

But they want people to spend more time (or $) in the game to buy "high-end avatars"...

[Red squirrel]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 December 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

No. Mediums are supposed to be the most common mechs in Battletech. I think they should therefore be more of a focus.

I wish we got more non-humanoid mechs. The Champion was already a good suggestion (counting it as a heavy medium)
But I'd really love to see a crab!

[Red squirrel]

Diego Angelus, on 07 December 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Why not make mechs more restricted that way we get that challange and more mechs that make sense.

Edit:

Too me layout is very immportant if one mech is better then other but both has same HPs then i won't consider using inferior chassis.

I guess in the beginning PGI had so few mechs, they needed to make them jack of all trades in order to give players some variety.
Nowadays it is just annoying how you can put the same laodout on many mechs. (Heck, we even got a ballistic Stalker variant)
This for example makes the 55 tonners kill the 50 tonners IMHO. Why use Cent, Hunch or Treb if you have ShadHawk, Griff and Wolverine do the same +more armor +jj?

The idea of sized HP would change this tremendously. It would be enough to separate each HP type into large and small. Now it would be a great addition to have a Panther as no other light can mount a PPC. Oh yes that Hunch on tha Hunchback is so big because it can actually hold an AC20 (which wont fit into your Catapult side torsos). But okay we have discussed this long enough.....

[Red squirrel]

Diego Angelus, on 07 December 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Maybe its time they drop that 3 variants bs I don't see why mechs should not be in game.

Especially as they started to invent variants as they please

Bishop Steiner, on 07 December 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

one mans elegance is another mans laziness.

If they want the game weighted one direction or another, they need to focus development in that direction. Thats smart design. Forced symmetry is not elegance, it lack of imagination. It's... Germanic. >True elegance is organic and asymmetrical.

I expected you as a member of House Steiner to hold Germanic traits in high regard.

[Diego Angelus]

Red squirrel, on 07 December 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I guess in the beginning PGI had so few mechs, they needed to make them jack of all trades in order to give players some variety.
Nowadays it is just annoying how you can put the same laodout on many mechs. (Heck, we even got a ballistic Stalker variant)
This for example makes the 55 tonners kill the 50 tonners IMHO. Why use Cent, Hunch or Treb if you have ShadHawk, Griff and Wolverine do the same +more armor +jj?

The idea of sized HP would change this tremendously. It would be enough to separate each HP type into large and small. Now it would be a great addition to have a Panther as no other light can mount a PPC. Oh yes that Hunch on tha Hunchback is so big because it can actually hold an AC20 (which wont fit into your Catapult side torsos). But okay we have discussed this long enough.....

We will never see something like that because it makes sense.

[Whatzituyah]

Strum Wealh, on 07 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

And using the tables for the SLDF 'mech as of 2750 - well before most of the 'Mechs anyone would recognize were even designed - is deceptive.

For example, why not use the 3025 LCAF table (pg. 13 of the FA&RT) instead? They heavily favor heavier designs, and anything they had as of 3025 would be fair game for 3050 (provided a sufficient number of variants were developed and deployed as of 3050), especially since its identical to the 3039 LCAF table (pg. 30 of the FA&RT) in terms of which chassis are listed.

LCAF 3025/3039 Medium 'Mechs (20 chassis):

• Vulcan
  
• Sentinel
  
• Cicada
  
• Assassin
  
• Clint
  
• Hatchetman
  
• Centurion
  
• Blackjack
  
• Whitworth
  
• Trebuchet
  
• Wyvern
  
• Enforcer
  
• Phoenix Hawk
  
• Hunchback
  
• Shadow Hawk
  
• Wolverine
  
• Crab
  
• Dervish
  
• Griffin
  
• Gladiator

LCAF 3025/3039 Heavy 'Mechs (18 chassis):

• Rifleman
  
• Champion
  
• Quickdraw
  
• Merlin
  
• Ostroc
  
• Ostsol
  
• Orion
  
• Warhammer
  
• Crusader
  
• Thunderbolt
  
• Bombardier
  
• Marauder
  
• Guillotine
  
• Archer
  
• Catapult
  
• Grasshopper
  
• Black Knight
  
• Flashman

LCAF 3025/3039 Assault 'Mechs (14 chassis):

• Charger
  
• Cyclops
  
• Longbow
  
• Zeus
  
• Victor
  
• Banshee
  
• Golaith
  
• Striker
  
• Awesome
  
• BattleMaster
  
• Stalker
  
• Highlander
  
• King Crab
  
• Atlas

Even the Lyrans, with the greatest proportion of heavier machines (on average, ~50% of the LCAF 'Mech forces would be Heavies and Assaults) and the greatest number of regiments as of 3050 (indicating that they would have most likely had a greater number of individual 'Mechs than the other factions) would still have generally had greater chassis variety within the Medium class than each the heavier classes.



As far as in-MWO, we already have three 50-tonners (Centurion, Hunchback, and Trebuchet) and we're about to have four 55-tonners (Kintaro and Shadow Hawk, plus Griffin and Wolverine).

If PGI wanted to have Medium 'Mechs be the most commonly played 'Mechs (in addition to the most numerous chassis type), they would need to somehow either (or both) incentivize playing Mediums or disincentivize playing Lights & Heavies & Assaults.

The bold underlined mechs are going to cause a problem. Legal real life problems I do not know if anything else would be a legal issue but I am leaning towards archer being one of those.

Edited by Whatzituyah, 07 December 2013 - 02:28 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

anything but assaults with two balistic arms..

[Whatzituyah]

Cathy, on 07 December 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

anything but assaults with two balistic arms..

Worse what about 4 balistic hardpoints on 2 arms? Annihilator

Edited by Whatzituyah, 07 December 2013 - 02:30 PM.

[FireSlade]

Red squirrel, on 07 December 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I guess in the beginning PGI had so few mechs, they needed to make them jack of all trades in order to give players some variety.
Nowadays it is just annoying how you can put the same laodout on many mechs. (Heck, we even got a ballistic Stalker variant)
This for example makes the 55 tonners kill the 50 tonners IMHO. Why use Cent, Hunch or Treb if you have ShadHawk, Griff and Wolverine do the same +more armor +jj?

The idea of sized HP would change this tremendously. It would be enough to separate each HP type into large and small. Now it would be a great addition to have a Panther as no other light can mount a PPC. Oh yes that Hunch on tha Hunchback is so big because it can actually hold an AC20 (which wont fit into your Catapult side torsos). But okay we have discussed this long enough.....

Sized HPs would add to the realism and would help to balance MWO (never would have seen 4-6PPC Stalkers) and many have been calling for it since the days of closed beta. Problem is PGI refuses to do it because they feel it would limit customization and a few vocal minority feel that they deserve to boat mechs and follow the high alpha meta.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 07 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Assault 'Mechs (14 chassis):

• Charger
  
• Cyclops
  
• Longbow
  
• Zeus
  
• Victor
  
• Banshee
  
• Golaith
  
• Striker
  
• Awesome
  
• BattleMaster
  
• Stalker
  
• Highlander
  
• King Crab
  
• Atlas

I don't want to teach the teacher, but are you not forgetting some chassis?

Like Annihilator, Crockett, Daboku, Imp, Marauder II, Shogun and Thug. All of them have some low tech variant at 3039.

There are also some later designs, like the Devastator, Hatamoto-Chi and Mauler.

And not to mention very old designs, not currently not produced, but maybe with some surviving exemplar, like the Emperor, Nightstar, Pillager, Striker, Spartan and Thunder Hawk.

[Odanan]

Whatzituyah, on 07 December 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The bold underlined mechs are going to cause a problem. Legal real life problems I do not know if anything else would be a legal issue but I am leaning towards archer being one of those.

Hello, are you new here? useful info here.

[Red squirrel]

FireSlade, on 07 December 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Sized HPs would add to the realism and would help to balance MWO (never would have seen 4-6PPC Stalkers) and many have been calling for it since the days of closed beta. Problem is PGI refuses to do it because they feel it would limit customization and a few vocal minority feel that they deserve to boat mechs and follow the high alpha meta.

And now they've got ghost heat......that's fixing a problem with a new problem.
And serious Awesome pilots are unable to drop in a stock AWS-8Q.

[Odanan]

FireSlade, on 07 December 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Sized HPs would add to the realism and would help to balance MWO (never would have seen 4-6PPC Stalkers) and many have been calling for it since the days of closed beta. Problem is PGI refuses to do it because they feel it would limit customization and a few vocal minority feel that they deserve to boat mechs and follow the high alpha meta.

They won't do it because it is a brutal change to the game (technically and culturally).
Not to mention the legion of people wanting refunds because their mechs no longer accept their custom loadouts.

Well, I guess I will need to start buying lotto tickets in the hopes of buying the Mechwarrior IP in the next 6 years (I don't know if MWO will live longer) and do a better Mechwarrior game (and yes, it would have single player missions included).

[FireSlade]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

They won't do it because it is a brutal change to the game (technically and culturally).
Not to mention the legion of people wanting refunds because their mechs no longer accept their custom loadouts.
Well, I guess I will need to start buying lotto tickets in the hopes of buying the Mechwarrior IP in the next 6 years (I don't know if MWO will live longer) and do a better Mechwarrior game (and yes, it would have single player missions included).

People would adapt and the wanting refunds is nothing new we see posts like that every week. I think that the overhaul for sized HP would have been a step in the right direction, and worth the work and uproar; instead we get ghost heat that was slapped together and still there was an uproar over it and it is just as limiting as sized HPs but punishes with heat when the heat system barely works. They could have put in sized HPs that allowed oversized weapons to be put in a small slot but could punish with extra weight and crit slots for the modified mounts. This would have the same effect as straight up sized HP while still allowing for full customizing of mech and make each chassis more distinct without the ghost heat.

And if you ever get ahold of the MW IP let me know. I would love a game with a story like MW2-3, MWO graphics, and online multiplayer that was balanced and little to no hacks. When I first heard about MWO back in 2009 when they released that trailer I was beside myself with hope for something like that with the MMO feel that they were claiming that they wanted. 4 years later we have a game that I like but really is nothing close to my expectations or what they promised.