20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

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

[/size]
Better now?

PS: don't forget the lasers and the PPC.

better, still like my canopy more though. And the yeah, the weaponry is nice, but you might notice, the whole pic is intentionally somewhat blurred, so things like the focal rings didn't stand out. If you want to add it, cool, but they should be blur masked to match the rest of the pic.

[Diego Angelus]

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

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 December 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

generally speaking, the units with the highest number, have the most variety. Because there are so many manufacturers, so many roles, so many contracts, that is how it tends to be.

And it certainly won't encourage more players to try Mediums if they have more choices in Heavies or Assaults. ECM Cics, Shads and Cents prove people WILL drive Mediums if they are well done. We now need more options to bring down the drop weights.

People will keep piloting them if they are effective designs, not if there are numerous chassis.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

People will keep piloting them if they are effective designs, not if there are numerous chassis.

Variety will also be vital. As the y need the available variants to not only fit each role, but each playstyle. Focusing on adding more variety to chassis that should be LESS frequent in the game make zero sense.

[Odanan]

Most variety?

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Most variety?

yes, we know FASA and CGL catered to the player base. Most people prefer Heavies and Assaults, so selling books required more. At which point haven't they contradicted themselves?

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 December 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

Variety will also be vital. As the y need the available variants to not only fit each role, but each playstyle. Focusing on adding more variety to chassis that should be LESS frequent in the game make zero sense.

The thing is: this game has nothing to do with the lore. We don't even play with stock mechs.

I like the symmetry for numbers of each weight class. It's elegant.

[Bishop Steiner]

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

The thing is: this game has nothing to do with the lore. We don't even play with stock mechs.

I like the symmetry for numbers of each weight class. It's elegant.

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.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 07 December 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[Odanan]

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.

As a backwards Brazilian (a people who praises the improvisation), I will have to disagree with that. Messy <> smart.

Neat is the new cool.

PS: Germans are badass.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

As a backwards Brazilian (a people who praises the improvisation), I will have to disagree with that. Messy <> smart.

Neat is the new cool.

PS: Germans are badass.

straight lines are for people without the skills or imagination to draw curvy ones.

[FireSlade]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Most variety?

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

yes, we know FASA and CGL catered to the player base. Most people prefer Heavies and Assaults, so selling books required more. At which point haven't they contradicted themselves?

I thought the heavy use of mediums was because they were much cheaper to field than an assault. Heavy mechs are tactically the best option there is combining the strengths of the mediums and assaults. The sheets that Odanan posted seems to agree with that statement due to more heavy designs than any other class meaning that companies would develop more of them to increase profits. I am not 100% sure but since the Clans are not as concerned with money as an Innersphere house is there seems to be more fielded heavy mech within the Clans than any other class.
Looking from the outside, Bishop is most likely correct in that they were catering to fans but Odanan is also correct. Since PGI is following the current available builds we are going to run out of mediums to use very soon and then PGI will be accused of favoring the meta, etc. when they cannot make any more without breaking either their rules or making new designs up.

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 December 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

straight lines are for people without the skills or imagination to draw curvy ones.

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.

[SgtMagor]

i'll make it easy for the Dev's. give us all the mechs in the 3050 timeline that have 3 variants and the ones that don't make them hero's or champions(and if that's not possible make them black market items?), you see that was easy

Edited by SgtMagor, 07 December 2013 - 08:57 AM.

[Zyllos]

With the current hardpoint rules...I don't see why we should be thinking about adding so many more new mechs.

[FireSlade]

Zyllos, on 07 December 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

With the current hardpoint rules...I don't see why we should be thinking about adding so many more new mechs.

Why not?

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 07 December 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Most variety?

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

yes, we know FASA and CGL catered to the player base. Most people prefer Heavies and Assaults, so selling books required more. At which point haven't they contradicted themselves?

Though, Oda's post just shows that the SLDF might have tended to run a bit on the heavier side; contrast this with the AFFS, DCMS, and CCAF, who tended to run lighter (the former two as a matter of doctrine, the lattermost as a matter of necessity) and compare to the LCAF (famous for their all-assault "Steiner Scout Lances") and the FWLM.

Quote

With regards to weight distributions, there are some regional variations. House Liao’s CCAF and House Davion’s AFFS generally obey the average distribution ratios. However, House Kurita’s DCMS places a great deal of emphasis on operational mobility and as such favours the use of light mechs, while believing that medium mechs represent a useless compromise. House Steiner’s LCAF has reached the opposite conclusion: thinking the general answer to any problem is to throw more weight at it, the Lyrans are perhaps the only force that employs the Charger as a scout mech with a straight face. Lastly, in the pre-Clan era House Marik’s FWLM (as well as its various provincial forces) strayed from the standard ratios, but due to supply shortages rather than a difference in doctrine; the Free Worlds League was chronically short of assault mechs, and in an attempt to compensate increased production of heavy mechs as much as possible.

Inner Sphere average: 30% Lights, 40% Mediums, 20% Heavies, 10% Assaults
CCAF (22.66 regiments as of 3050): 30% Lights, 40% Mediums, 20% Heavies, 10% Assaults
DCMS (99 regiments as of 3050): 40% Lights, 20% Mediums, 30% Heavies, 10% Assaults
AFFS (77.33 regiments as of 3050): 30% Lights, 40% Mediums, 20% Heavies, 10% Assaults
FWLM (56 regiments as of 3050): 30% Lights, 40% Mediums, 22.5% Heavies, 7.5% Assaults
LCAF (112 regiments as of 3050): 20% Lights, 30% Mediums, 35% Heavies, 15% Assaults

The average distribution percentages are canon, as are the number of House regiments unless otherwise noted, but the varying regional distribution percentages are unofficial conjecture.

(Source: page 04 of the unofficial Faction Assignment and Rarity Tables put together by a member of the Master Unit List team)

Also, it should be noted that Sarna currently includes 124 entries for Light BattleMech chassis and 153 entries for Medium BattleMech chassis, versus 139 entries for Heavy BattleMech chassis and 118 entries for Assault BattleMech chassis - tallies that include both tech bases and all eras.

As far as BT is concerned, Bishop is largely correct on this point - Lights and Mediums would generally be the most common 'Mechs in-universe, in terms of both number of distinct chassis and number of individual units seen in each Successor State's military.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 07 December 2013 - 09:08 AM.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 07 December 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

As far as BT is concerned, Bishop is largely correct on this point - Lights and Mediums would generally be the most common 'Mechs in-universe, in terms of both number of distinct chassis and number of individual units seen in each Successor State's military.

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.

[Diego Angelus]

FireSlade, on 07 December 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

Why not?

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

[SgtMagor]

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.

[FireSlade]

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.

People tend to play assaults more even though they are not necessarily the more efficient. I have just found them the most forgiving for stupidity.