51 replies to this topic

[Wolfwood592]

I for one am tired of all the crying and whining this community puts forth towards the idea that certain mechs are more OP than others and have no weaknesses. ALL mechs have a weakness...but than again, I forgot that it is easier to just complain.

So how about this:

1) Redesign hardpoints on ALL mechs and have certain hardpoints that are universal. (Like in MW4)

2) Make ALL tech available to IS and CLAN at respective costs. If you are IS and want Clan tech you are going to have to pay MORE for it, even MC, and vice versa for Clan wanting IS tech. (How can you cry about how OP someone else' weapons are if you have them?)

3) Advance timeline and bring out more mechs and weapons for both CLAN and IS. (cant complain about not having something it if it sitting right in front of you)

Of course we can change a few things like:

1) Lock IS motors, Endo, and FF like CLAN and force us to play like they do. ( although we would have their weapon tech)

2) Give clan full customization of their mechs. (Tired of reading posts crying about this)

3) Decease TTK and increase survivability for mechs that need it. (AKA Atlas and Whale)
.

The other option is to take ALL customization away from mechs and lock them into the default variant. Thus bring the reason for having variants in the first place back to the forefront.

Will this create imbalances? Probably. Will this community always find a reason to cry? Absolutely

Do I care that you are clan and don't want your precious tech in the hands of IS? No
Do I care that the IS doesn't want the pin point ACs and endless customization to get to the CLANS? No.


If you argument is that this game is based off BTECH and TT so none of this should happen. Here is how I feel about that:

How many changes have been made to this game by designers that differed from the original "design" and gameplay of TT or the lore of BTTECH? It seems that this reason is only thrown when a change would be inconvenient to a player. This game has gone far away from TT in the terms of gameplay and lore that it does NOT matter anymore. So please, keep that silly statement to yourself.

Edited by Wolfwood592, 04 January 2015 - 05:12 PM.

[Brody319]

nope

[EgoSlayer]

It's not April first is it?

[NephyrisX]

No.2 pretty much breaks the game.

[Koniving]

Wolfwood592, on 04 January 2015 - 05:10 PM, said:

This game has gone far away from TT in the terms of gameplay and lore that it does NOT matter anymore.

This is why I don't play as often as I used to.
I still remember the day "A Battletech Game" was added to the title.
Over teamspeak, we all noticed it around the same time, when it just became part of the icon and title on the website.
...I remember the first joke.

I remember many jokes.

But in the end, "PGI has strayed so far from the source material that they felt the need to remind us of its origin, where they took maybe 3 pages out of a rulebook, peeked at a single tech manual, and said 'Okay that's all we're gonna use'."

And then they rewrote two of those three pages.

[stocky0904]

nope! the mech balancing in general is fine atm. Some mechs are a bit OP but i think thats no problem. a little bit of fine tuning will do.

[Brody319]

Koniving, on 04 January 2015 - 05:21 PM, said:

This is why I don't play as often as I used to.
I still remember the day "A Battletech Game" was added to the title.
Over teamspeak, we all noticed it around the same time, when it just became part of the icon and title on the website.
...I remember the first joke.

I remember many jokes.

But in the end, "PGI has strayed so far from the source material that they felt the need to remind us of its origin, where they took maybe 3 pages out of a rulebook, peeked at a single tech manual, and said 'Okay that's all we're gonna use'."

And then they rewrote two of those three pages.

Yea...its almost like they are making an FPS team shooter and not a board game...

[RazarG]

Thats a crazy way to fix complaints of crazy people.

IMO no drastic balances are needed at all. Good IS players don't complain about OP clans, and only rubbish clanners complain about their mechs cause they expect their mechs to be OP.

[Wolfwood592]

NephyrisX, on 04 January 2015 - 05:15 PM, said:

No.2 pretty much breaks the game.

This must be based on statistical evidence and a closed beta experience I wasn't invited to.

[Brody319]

Wolfwood592, on 04 January 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

This must be based on statistical evidence and a closed beta experience I wasn't invited to.

Paying MC for weapons...MC for alternate tech weapons?! You think that is a good idea?! You are ******* insane.

Imagine Thunderbolts with lighter clan PPCs, dealing splash damage, and using that extra tonnage to put more heat sinks in.

Or

Imagine a ******* Wubshee with Clan tech.

No.2 Would destroy this game faster than anything else.

[Koniving]

Brody319, on 04 January 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

Yea...its almost like they are making an FPS team shooter and not a board game...

You can take 100% of the tabletop's rules with the advanced rules, and still make a first person simulation.

Pilot consciousness. Heat causing heatsinks to melt and systems to fry.
Through armor criticals.
Damage based on a 10 second system as opposed to a 4 second system.
Viable single heatsinks.
A separate Heatsink threshold (you have 15 single heatsinks? You can handle 15 heat + 4 being fired at the same time, any more and you risk melting a heatsink) and Mech heat threshold (maximum heat overall, when the machine's functionality begins to deteriorate).
Every, single, aspect, could be done if interpreted appropriately.

PGI, as demonstrated by David and Paul, take "Awesome 8Q is heat neutral firing 3 PPCs" to mean it never gains heat. Wrong, it gains heat, and has to wait for 10 seconds without firing for that heat to go away. That's heat neutrality, not "Oh I can fire 3 PPCs all day and never overheat, tabletop is stupid." What's further, is firing all that heat at once is really risking it, too.

[Brody319]

Koniving, on 04 January 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

You can take 100% of the tabletop's rules with the advanced rules, and still make a first person simulation.

Pilot consciousness. Heat causing heatsinks to melt and systems to fry.
Through armor criticals.
Damage based on a 10 second system as opposed to a 4 second system.
Viable single heatsinks.
A separate Heatsink threshold (you have 15 single heatsinks? You can handle 15 heat + 4 being fired at the same time, any more and you risk melting a heatsink) and Mech heat threshold (maximum heat overall, when the machine's functionality begins to deteriorate).
Every, single, aspect, could be done if interpreted appropriately.

PGI, as demonstrated by David and Paul, take "Awesome 8Q is heat neutral firing 3 PPCs" to mean it never gains heat. Wrong, it gains heat, and has to wait for 10 seconds without firing for that heat to go away. That's heat neutrality, not "Oh I can fire 3 PPCs all day and never overheat, tabletop is stupid." What's further, is firing all that heat at once is really risking it, too.

OR the game would be so overly complex no one but hardcore battletech fans would even want to play it.

Also that little issue of IGP hanging over your head and the lack of employees, the game engine with little to no support meaning your coders are on their own to make the game work.

[Wolfwood592]

Brody319, on 04 January 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

Paying MC for weapons...MC for alternate tech weapons?! You think that is a good idea?! You are ******* insane.

Imagine Thunderbolts with lighter clan PPCs, dealing splash damage, and using that extra tonnage to put more heat sinks in.

Or

Imagine a ******* Wubshee with Clan tech.

No.2 Would destroy this game faster than anything else.

If the quirks were removed? What than? Those two examples would be gone.

But like I said, this must be based on statistical evidence. Or is this a unsupported claim based on personal theory with no supporting evidence?

Edited by Wolfwood592, 04 January 2015 - 05:33 PM.

[Brody319]

Wolfwood592, on 04 January 2015 - 05:33 PM, said:

If the quirks were removed? What than? Those two examples would be gone.

But like I said, this must be based on statistical evidence. Or is this a unsupported claim based on personal theory with no supporting evidence?

You want to give the DIREWOLF who has 50 tons to play with, IS ballistics?!


Also your entire argument is an unsupported claim that ANY of what you have suggested would fix the game.

[Walluh]

Nearly everything in this is a bad idea

[Wolfwood592]

Brody319, on 04 January 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

You want to give the DIREWOLF who has 50 tons to play with, IS ballistics?!


Also your entire argument is an unsupported claim that ANY of what you have suggested would fix the game.

I never said or stated it would fix the game, just the crying of certain topics.

You were saying?


And honestly? I couldn't care less if the whale had IS ballistics. I wouldn't have to hear clanners state how much better IS ballistics are.

[SuomiWarder]

I actually would prefer the MW4 typed boxes with slots system over the more B Tech pure system we have now. The issue of FF and IS would have to be handled as it should reduce the amount of space for weapons somehow. But the MW4 system did make differences between the chassis and allowed the game designers to stop certain weapon combos or multiple heavy weapons without arbitrary ghost heat.

But I imagine it is way too late to change things now.

[Brody319]

Wolfwood592, on 04 January 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

I never said or stated it would fix the game, just the crying of certain topics.

You were saying?


And honestly? I couldn't care less if the whale had IS ballistics. I wouldn't have to hear clanners state how much better IS ballistics are.

Oh, so you are just giving the Extreme cry babies what they want?

Clanners bring up ballistics because the IS whine about Clan tech being OP.

Mix tech would break the game so ******* fast. It just becomes a series of mech reskins. only a few chassis would be useful anymore.

[Wolfwood592]

Brody319, on 04 January 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Oh, so you are just giving the Extreme cry babies what they want?

Clanners bring up ballistics because the IS whine about Clan tech being OP.

Mix tech would break the game so ******* fast. It just becomes a series of mech reskins. only a few chassis would be useful anymore.

How in the world do you or anyone else know if it would break the game?

[RazarG]

Wolfwood592, on 04 January 2015 - 05:37 PM, said:

I never said or stated it would fix the game, just the crying of certain topics.

You were saying?


And honestly? I couldn't care less if the whale had IS ballistics. I wouldn't have to hear clanners state how much better IS ballistics are.

You wanna quit the crying over one issue and create more to cry over....sound plan. You should be take seriously hey?