8
SuperPignouf, on 30 December 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:
My personal opinion is that it would in fact nullify the taste difference between clan and IS by giving clantech to IS, and nullify the use for quirks, which are currently used as the main balancing tool between clan and IS mechs.
Quirks are an (arguably necessary) evil. I have played MWO before quirks and Clan mechs, and there always was some kind of cheese mechs and builds that people abused (Spiders, Firestarters, Thunderbolts, Stalkers everywhere!). As if there are or would be no cheese builds with more advanced tech. To combat these, PGI resorted to ghost heat, Gauss charge and other tricks that now include quirks. So if quirks are nullified, that means the game is balanced enough, which is all for better. I can hardly bear the sight of them now.
Firewuff, on 31 December 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:
Mwo isnt and never will be the TT. Simple as that. I love this game for what its and not what it is in realtion to the Tt
I believe I have to include that into my signature from now on, so that I do not have to quote it for all the people that forget this simple fact. Different gameplay, different criteria, different mechanics.
Mad Porthos, on 31 December 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:
It seems to me this is going to be a real sticking point, because if you decide that the timeline advances by ten years, you must address these effects. If you do so by deciding that suddenly all old innersphere auto cannons are suddenly burstfire, then you are throwing away the solution they came up with, eliminating the big differences they previously used to balance the UAC and prevent clan UAC from being too overpowered, compared to inner sphere normal AC. If burst fire and smaller calibers are not brought into the IS autocannon line, you will have Jagermechs using 2x UAC 20, dropping 80 points in same location in a split second with double taps. However, if you do the exact same thing to all preexisting inner sphere cannon, every one of them become totally obsolete, because even like a normal UAC5 which the inner sphere has had all along, becomes far less effective over night as it becomes several smaller projectiles all of a sudden, splattwring over several locations possibly, whereas it never would have splashed damage around before.
Something would HAVE to be done, and the backlash from IS players seeing their old trusty autocannon suddenly change would be ugly, possibly unpalatable. HENCE I believe PGI will avoid this can of worms for years to come. After all, they have not even finished implementing all the commonly available weapons of 3050 yet (arrow IV, mech mortars, etc.) - why jump to 3060?
Something would HAVE to be done, and the backlash from IS players seeing their old trusty autocannon suddenly change would be ugly, possibly unpalatable. HENCE I believe PGI will avoid this can of worms for years to come. After all, they have not even finished implementing all the commonly available weapons of 3050 yet (arrow IV, mech mortars, etc.) - why jump to 3060?
As if we have not had AC/40 Campermechs, like, years before that. I refuse to believe that Insta-Win©®™ button has any place in a game that claims to be competitive (which MWO does). Besides, PGI has already gimped all of Inner Sphere cannons. They should work like Clan cannons do now, also with the ability of ammo switch for LB-x, which will have to be implemented for ATM and other special munitions within a single match. The current duplication version does not cut it. As for public reaction:
Corbenik, on 19 March 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:
In the end even with all those weapons people will still min max and the same ole builds will be had and seen. and the river of QQ will over fill that not enough Waaaambulances will be available to save the casualties.
There was a lot of whine already when the Clans dropped; there is a lot of whine now since IS mechs and weapons are OP like I wrote above. Why it has to be any different with any new changes? And if not, why even bother? Game developers need to base their balance decisions upon sufficiently proven facts and game statistics, not the sheer number of QQ posts backed with nothing but childish rants.
My opinion: move and keep moving the timeline. An online game should PROGRESS and DEVELOP within feasible product lifetime, which is, for online games, around 5 years. I fail to understand the people who want to slow, or worse still, INVERT the progress the game has made. What is next, 1:1 timeline? If somebody wants their grandchildren to inherit their game account, they are entitled to their own sick fantasies or, possibly, some kind of WW2 simulator (note that I am not quoting anybody on this, you know who you are, quiaff?). I just do not want to chew through the same stuff year after year.
