344 replies to this topic

[random51]

I don't understand why people want to ruin the entire game just because you can boat Catapults.

Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Wouldn't it make more sense to tweak the easily boatable variants? That is assuming people feel that boating and specialization is a problem in the first place.

I do not. This is a team game. Look at any modern military worth a damn and you'll find specialization. It is one of the key reasons to fight as a team in the first place.

Sounds like what would be a better idea is a stock mode and/or arena combat with fixed configurations. You wouldn't have to worry about the guy next door coming up with a more effective configuration.

See the difference in my solution? I'm adding features, creating more game for people to play, instead of removing features that some people already enjoy.

[Javin]

Limiting the mechlab would be limiting the game imo. I love that I can make good or, all to often, bad designs.

[Imagine Dragons]

random51, on 27 November 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

I do not. This is a team game. Look at any modern military worth a damn and you'll find specialization. It is one of the key reasons to fight as a team in the first place.

Modern military is combined arms...

OH DEAR GOD GOOD SIR, YOUR SHIP IS SINKING!

Its like saying that Cruisers and Destroyers have a role in a naval combat game comprised of soley Cruisers, Destroyers AND Battleships...

What is the bloody point of the Cruisers and Destroyers?

Edited by XenomorphZZ, 27 November 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[Greiva]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

One of the biggest problems with previous Battle tech games was the "universal customization" allowance. Meaing everyone thought just because they salvaged or puchased it, it was going to fit on their mech, even tho common sense said no. Like a PPC on Jenner.........not gonna happen, or at least should not. However if you have the tonnage or willing to sacrifice things, you could make it happen, and this brought on the light - medium mechs with 12-18 small pulse lasers circle straffing ppl (which has been addressed in this game).

However playing the IS WAS supposed to be hard, they were no Omni mechs like the clans, thus the IS had Variants of their mechs and this is what we need to stick to also...the variant models. Or at the least limit the amount of a specific type of weapon can be put on an IS mech.

An Atlas with 4 large pulse lasers would make no sense, as there is already a mech that has that config (Rifleman IIC) and the Atlas role if close and personal with beefy armor, or would you put 3 ER PPC on an Atlas, when the Awesome already has that config?

To be true to the table top game you also have to be true to the varaints and each mechs limitations, as each mech was built to fit a role with certain needs in mind.

The Omi mech (clan mechs and later the IS introduced their versions) Is the only mech capable of taking and swapping various weapson and heatsinks without penalty...........we should keep it like that. My 2 cents...FLAME ON!

The original Battletech never allowed for such extravagant mechs. I sure made a few in my time that were baddass, but never so insane they were out of control.

I wish they took the rules from the Battletech compendium and adjusted them to this game so people could have more customization options.

At the very minimum at least let people decide where the hardmounts are located, instead of default locations.

[Melcyna]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 November 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

the core issue is something I read on penny arcade recently and goes right to the heart of the problem.

Take the dual guass catapult. now, PGI is bringing in a gauss rifle "nurf" that will make the gauss very prone to destruction once all your armour has been stripped. So, until your armour is stripped, you are massively OP, but if someone can strip your RT/LT armour, then you'll be likely to lose the gauss rifles.

the atlas, the hunchback, all will suffer horribly from this gauss rifle "nurf" because the ballistic hardpoint is already a prime target and easily hit.

the K2? haha...smallest RT/LT in the game....it will suffer the LEAST and in fact become an even MORE IDEAL choice for the dual gauss rifles - if not the only choice, as the RT/LT are so tiny and hard to hit.

Hardpoints /weapons MUST be fixed. hardpoints should go Mech4 style - small, medium large. we already HAVE the guns with these slot requirements, we just need hardpoints with the same slot requirements.

I dont know if PGI can handle a switch like this at this point.

however, the core issue and probably the biggest offender is the K2, and moving the machinge gun ports to the CT would be a simple enough solution.

the cataphract 4X with 4 ac2's is an odd one as well. no need for a jaggermech now. why odd? because the 4X only has 1 ballistic slot in each arm visually.

Personally though, i don't consider the nerf a problem with the atlas, hunch, etc... since gauss rifle IS OP indeed so it's a price a mech has to pay for what's otherwise a directly superior projectile weapon.

It would not make the weapon invalid or non ideal for either atlas, hunch, etc.. (depending on how much the nerf is) so much as it will alter their play style now that the weapon will become much more fragile. It may not be an ideal weapon for say a hunch that cannot shield the gun section no matter what, but that's to be expected (an Atlas can still shield it effectively with the arm)...

the problem in this particular case is still at it's heart, a problem with the catapult K2 variant and it's projectile slot... that magnifies what is already a broken weapon (which is about to become less broken).

on the topic of the visual representation though and how many guns they should be able to fit? i think we can give them a slack there...

i mean despite the hunch having what's clearly a single autocannon barrel, i certainly would not object to it mounting multiple smaller AC instead within the assembly (not that the BT autocannon made sense in the first place), and i am sure we can forgive them for not having custom model there that represents visually the exact number and type of AC mounted within the space.

Whether the cataphract should have 4 ballistic slot there or not though that's another story... personally i don't mind 2 mech being able to do mount similar weapon configuration since variation is a good thing. If i say refuse to use jaggermech because it visually does not agree with me (which i actually like but for example let's pretend i don't), then cataphract would offer an alternative.

What i fear more is the cataphract being able to mount them on a fully articulated arm which is superior to the 1 degree freedom swivel arm (similar to jenner's "arm")... but i will refrain from further worry until we get a clear confirmation on jaggermech ability (perhaps it can rotate the torso fast enough that it's not an issue?)