819 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 10 August 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Everybody hated Ghost Heat.

Honestly, the real question should be, do we even need ghost heat right now?

Instead of the ghost heat nerf for UAC10s recently, why couldn't they have extended the delay between shells to nerf it a bit, or undo the ammo boost they gave it, or even both? There are a lot of other fixes to these weapons to make them less powerful overall, sure it was meant to prevent boating, but that is going to happen anyway, the only difference is whether it is DPS oriented or alpha oriented.

Failing that, lower heat caps to really limit how often an alpha can be made and how long a DPS mech can sustain fire.

[Gas Guzzler]

FupDup, on 10 August 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

IS Small Laser?

Yeah that too, sorry, forgot about that one. It's small and easy to forget.

[dervishx5]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

Yeah that too, sorry, forgot about that one. It's small and easy to forget.

[pyrocomp]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Well guess what! The pew pew meta is gone, rejoice and be glad. Load up on your autocannons/autocannons+PPCs in your Warhammer or UACs in your Kodiak-3 and you will be as meta as they come.

If there is a bar-indicator on the HUD to what 'Draw' level is then this may suggest that it is not the alpha damage that is factored (as in damage per weapons firing simulteneously), but something similar to heat or what-the-name-be for flamer resourse. This implies that the system probably is resistant to obvious low-delay firing or use of macros to introduce minor delays between shots. Thus UAC-meta is more of a scarecrow than a actual threat.

But this above is a speculation. Same as implying that the system will only factor damage of weapons fired via single press of a single button (used to tell people that Dakka will be the new meta king). So, without concreat statements on draw system 'short term memory' nonexistense or existence and properties any conclusions on 'new' 'meta' are baseless in my opinion. Thus I'm eager to see what is there just for simple reason of thinking that 72 dmg alpha on a Light (or ~80-90 on other mechs) is not what this game needs or ever wanted to have.

EDIT: typos

Edited by pyrocomp, 10 August 2016 - 11:47 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

pyrocomp, on 10 August 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

If there is a bar-indicator on the HUD to what 'Draw' level is this may suggest that it is not the alpha damage that is factored (as in damage per weapons firing simulteneously), but something similar to heat or what-the-name-be for flamer resourse. This impliers that the system probably is resistant to obvious low-delay firing or use of macros to introduce minor dalays between shots. Thus UAC-meta is more of a scarecrow than a actual threat.

But this above is a speculation. Same as implying that the system will only factor damage of weapons fired via single press of a single button (used to tell people that Dakka will be the new meta king). So, without concreat statements on draw system 'short term memory' nonexistense or existence and properties any conclusions on 'new' 'meta' are baseless in my opinion. Thus I'm eager to see what is there just for simple reason of thinking that 72 dmg alpha on a Light (or ~80-90 on other mechs) is not what this game needs or ever wanted to have.

Wishful thinking is plaguing your judgement.

Its about alpha damage, not DPS. There has never been any statements about limiting DPS, its all about limiting the alpha. Russ himself described it as "heatscale (ghost heat) with workarounds (things like stacking LPLs and MLs) fixed and an indicator in the HUD"

BTW, I can say confidently that ACs will be meta after energy draw, because they already ARE meta before energy draw.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 10 August 2016 - 11:50 AM.

[pyrocomp]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

Wishful thinking is plaguing your judgement.

Its about alpha damage, not DPS. There has never been any statements about limiting DPS, its all about limiting the alpha. Russ himself described it as "heatscale (ghost heat) with workarounds (things like stacking LPLs and MLs) fixed and an indicator in the HUD"

BTW, I can say confidently that ACs will be meta after energy draw, because they already ARE meta before energy draw.

That might be a wisful thinking, that cloud my vision, but before any specs anything is a speculation. 'Heat scale' is about DPS same as about alpha as first is limited in duration to be sustained and the second is limited in terms of number of alphas before overheat. Anyway, if you think that new GH will be about alphas only you may do so, I'm in no position to argue since I have no data to use against.

As for the dakka meta... If the 'meta' is the most used ideology of build ('more lasers' or 'more low caliber ballistics' or 'Gauss+LPLs' or whatever) then there always be shifting meta, even if the weapons and mech stats will remain unchanged. If 'meta' is calculated all round best way to build a specific mech... Everybody has their own idea what id the best (as this forum shows) unless the advantage is too obvious. And with all those disscussions what build is better and with all those mechs seen in the game I doubt this is the case now. The clan mechs introduction was the obvious meta. The Blackjack overquirkening was a meta. I think that current shift to dakka is more like a fashion trend as people got tired of laser vomit and got used to it and to ways to counter it (like wild torso swisting). Dakka will see it's rise and will be overturned by laser or missile 'meta' or whatever in some time even without changes to stats and systems.

Edited by pyrocomp, 10 August 2016 - 03:55 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

pyrocomp, on 10 August 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

I think that current **** to dakka is more like a fashion trend as people got tired of laser vomit and got used to it and to ways to counter it (like wild torso swisting).

Cuz the comp teams all stopped using poptarts for something else during the poptart meta......

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 09:42 AM, said:

With the fact that dakka is already edging out laser vomit builds, and laser vomit builds are going to get a swift kick to the teeth with energy draw, its pretty obvious that lasers will go the way of the dinosaur. SRMs might be okay depending on how their damage is factored in to the 30 damage cap, as there are rumors that spread weapons will count for less damage.



In that situation though, energy draw isn't going to make a difference, 30 damage times 5 is 150 damage..

150 damage, possibly spread over 5 compartments, is exponentially more survivable than 250 damage applied the same way.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

We have that currently, its called taking different weapons that behave similar to as though you were chain firing big weapons. Even still, your option to make that a "choice" is to nerf the alpha strike to the point that the whole choice is moot because you can no longer actually rely on them.

Define "rely on them". Do you mean know that every shot will land on the same component? If so, yes! And it is a good thing. Not only is it better for the game, increasing TTK, but it is backed up by both real world physics AND the BT universe.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

I don't think you got the point of that post, if you had a choice between 2 AC20 builds or 4 AC5 builds, the one that would win out (as it currently does) if you can't reliably sustain the 2 AC20 build is the 4 AC5 because it has less downsides and higher DPS.

Heat? Tonnage? The only reason 4 AC/5 is better is because convergence allows every shot to land on the same pixel.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

So in your eyes, it doesn't matter whether it is a Spider with 2 MPLs or a Kodiak with 4 UAC10s, all should be punished for group fire regardless of the group damage output? Or is their context in that something like group firing 3 AC5s is acceptable but 4 UAC10s is not? If there is context, then guess what, we already have that, its called dakka and it is prevalent in the meta, even before the Dakka Kodiak came about (which was more alpha oriented).

I would not call it "punished". I would call it realism.
The more weapons fired simultaneously, the less precise they are. The choice is huge raw damage or precise smaller damage, repeated.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

So anything fired in groups is a blight upon mechwarrior, even if it is 2 MGs? It still won't change up the dynamics of what make a good build, just look at the 5 LPL Wubshee/Wubmaster. It still encourages me to stack similar weapons, but with a forced chainfire sort of system, I'm just going to gravitate towards big weapons and say screw anything small. Goodbye AC2s, MLs, SLs, MGs, SRMs, AC5s, LLs, Flamers, LBX.

No, anytime you can effectively build one superweapon out of many weapons, and have perfect precision on one trigger pull is a "blight" upon realism AND the BT universe. Like you said, it will not change what constitutes a good build (although I contend that more builds would be possible to be good), and it will not make lesser pilots into better pilots.
...so where is the problem?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

No it won't because suddenly I can withstand more firepower, making pushing much easier. You want mechs to be tougher and withstand more fire, guess what, that has direct implications on what strats/tactics are viable and it generally means range is less effective because removing firepower from the equation on a push is very important in whether or not you survive the push once they get within range. This is why you will see matches where a push occurs and they win despite one or two mechs dying with 0-100 damage.

You can withstand more firepower (actually it is the same amount of firepower, it just isn't delivered in one megadose), but so can your enemy.

Satan n stuff, on 10 August 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

I don't think you get what I was saying there, random elements are usually put in place so players with little actual skill can occasionally get a kill and skilled players have to put in more effort than they otherwise would. Players with good aim have it much harder because the randomness sets a hard limit on how accurate you can be while it barely affects players who can only aim in the general direction of the enemy to begin with. It's purely a way to stop games from being dominated by skilled players so they don't scare away all the newbies.
Since we don't have bad players going against good players if the matchmaker is working correctly there's no point in having such a system in MWO, in other words your example is completely irrelevant.

Oh, I get it. What you must have misunderstood is that I never said anything at all about randomness. At the very most it is a player-mitigated probability curve.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

150 damage, possibly spread over 5 compartments, is exponentially more survivable than 250 damage applied the same way.

I'm sorry, you already said that aiming is easy, so it should be 150 damage into one component.

And yeah if by exponentially you mean that 150^1.102 = 250 then yes it is exponentially (that 1.102 exponent... so huge!) more survivable.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Define "rely on them".

Rely on them as in they are no longer truly viable, the point of an alpha strike is do spike damage, if that spike is no bigger than a DPS oriented "spike" then they are no longer special.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Heat? Tonnage? The only reason 4 AC/5 is better is because convergence allows every shot to land on the same pixel.

4 AC5 is more heat efficient than 2 AC20s, but it is heavier (but not by enough to make up for the difference in performance).

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

I would not call it "punished". I would call it realism.
The more weapons fired simultaneously, the less precise they are. The choice is huge raw damage or precise smaller damage, repeated.

Realism serves no purpose in a balance discussion, at all. It is nice if you can fluff balance decisions using realism but that should NOT be a guiding principle behind balance, ever.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

No, anytime you can effectively build one superweapon out of many weapons, and have perfect precision on one trigger pull is a "blight" upon realism AND the BT universe. Like you said, it will not change what constitutes a good build (although I contend that more builds would be possible to be good), and it will not make lesser pilots into better pilots.
...so where is the problem?

So your goal is to make a slew of weapon useless in comparison to other weapons because you don't think that alpha strikes should be a part of the game, good to know (hint: this is one of the major problem of forcing chain fire for everything to get accurate shots).

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

You can withstand more firepower (actually it is the same amount of firepower, it just isn't delivered in one megadose), but so can your enemy.

That doesn't matter as much when you have superior DPS, which the shorter your optimal range is, the higher your DPS tend to be. Which is sort of the point, currently the only thing keeping the long range meta alive are big maps like Frozen, Alpine, and Polar, and PPCs/Gauss still being able to poke effectively (and that hasn't been fully tested, dakka may dominate even on those maps).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2016 - 01:06 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm sorry, you already said that aiming is easy, so it should be 150 damage into one component.

And yeah if by exponentially you mean that 150^1.102 = 250 then yes it is exponentially (that 1.102 exponent... so huge!) more survivable.

It is 5 different people aiming. Unless you are symbiotes, it is, as I said, potentially 5 different components.

...and I do not feel the need to expose your math fail, but suffice it to say that armor+internals is a finite number.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

Rely on them as in they are no longer truly viable, the point of an alpha strike is do spike damage, if that spike is no bigger than a DPS oriented "spike" then they are no longer special.

And we are getting to the crux of it! Spike damage, yes. Pinpoint PRECISE spike damage, no. And that is the reason chain fire is never used.
This IS the BT universe, like it or not, and in the BT universe, chain fire is the norm, and alpha striking/group fire is the exception.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

4 AC5 is more heat efficient than 2 AC20s, but it is heavier (but not by enough to make up for the difference in performance).

...depending on the tonnage of the 'mech and the speed at which you would like to go. Having chain fire be the only way to be sure your shot is perfectly precise makes the 2xAC/20 buil an even competitor, IMO.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

Realism serves no purpose in a balance discussion, at all. It is nice if you can fluff balance decisions using realism but that should NOT be a guiding principle behind balance, ever.

I disagree. IF said realism helps with balance, it should be one of the primary tools to use.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

So your goal is to make a slew of weapon useless in comparison to other weapons because you don't think that alpha strikes should be a part of the game, good to know (hint: this is one of the major problem of forcing chain fire for everything to get accurate shots).

Again I disagree. There are a myriad of tools already in the game to balance weapons against each other: Weight, Heat, crit space, damage, range, velocity, burn time, spread, lock, FLD.
If you cannot balance weapons within the framework of those TEN variables, the ability to precisely alpha all of them ain't gonna do it.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

That doesn't matter as much when you have superior DPS, which the shorter your optimal range is, the higher your DPS tend to be. Which is sort of the point, currently the only thing keeping the long range meta alive are big maps like Frozen, Alpine, and Polar, and PPCs/Gauss still being able to poke effectively (and that hasn't been fully tested, dakka may dominate even on those maps).

And i do not see a huge difference. Or are you suggesting that PPCs/Gauss are ONLY effective when fired in multiples?

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

It is 5 different people aiming. Unless you are symbiotes, it is, as I said, potentially 5 different components.

...and I do not feel the need to expose your math fail, but suffice it to say that armor+internals is a finite number.

What math fail? That statement was correct.

5 different people aiming (aiming is trivial, per your own words) presumably at CT because that is how you kill mechs, so I don't see 5 different people aiming 5 different places.

This is honestly a stupid argument, but its just as stupid as expecting to be out of position, getting pushed by 6-10 mechs and surviving more than a few seconds.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

This IS the BT universe, like it or not, and in the BT universe, chain fire is the norm, and alpha striking/group fire is the exception.

The basis for your argument sucks man. If I wanted to play BT, I would play BT. This is MechWarrior, alpha striking and group firing is the norm, chainfiring is the exception.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

And we are getting to the crux of it! Spike damage, yes. Pinpoint PRECISE spike damage, no. And that is the reason chain fire is never used.

You still aren't getting it, precise spike damage is the point of having alpha oriented weapons, if DPS is the only thing that matters then it will boil down to just that, which combination of weapons get you the best DPS. Stack that, push, win, repeat. That will be the MO for every successful drop dec because you can no longer do precise spike damage, just precise damage over time. Aiming isn't a problem when you can just enmasse death ball at the enemy without fear of precise spike damage wrecking you, just massed dakka.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

This IS the BT universe, like it or not, and in the BT universe, chain fire is the norm, and alpha striking/group fire is the exception.

This isn't the BT universe, this is based on it. I will say it again, Mechwarrior does not nor should it be, a 1:1 with the BT universe, just like TT is not 1:1 with the lore/fluff.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

...depending on the tonnage of the 'mech and the speed at which you would like to go. Having chain fire be the only way to be sure your shot is perfectly precise makes the 2xAC/20 buil an even competitor, IMO.

Tonnage of the mech doesn't really matter, only weight class does currently which blurs that reasoning. The chain fire could potentially make the AC20 build better, but considering it is worse in everything it won't.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

I disagree. IF said realism helps with balance, it should be one of the primary tools to use.

It is never a suitable rationale for a balance discussion, ever, only a bonus if that balance change happens to line up with reality.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Again I disagree. There are a myriad of tools already in the game to balance weapons against each other: Weight, Heat, crit space, damage, range, velocity, burn time, spread, lock, FLD.
If you cannot balance weapons within the framework of those TEN variables, the ability to precisely alpha all of them ain't gonna do it.

Except they are going to seriously alter weapons to actually make them worthwhile, AC2s, SRM2s, MGs, SLs already have issues, and you want to exacerbate them and then try and balance them to try and make up for the loss, good luck with that.

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

And i do not see a huge difference. Or are you suggesting that PPCs/Gauss are ONLY effective when fired in multiples?

That is the way alpha oriented weapons work, they are meant to spike damage because that is their sole advantage over something that has higher DPS like AC5s. Actually that is one of the major points of energy weapons where heat neutrality is not a thing. Ballistics as they are currently have a naturally higher sustained DPS due to their heat profile, energy weapons will never achieve this without significant changes to their heat profile or heat itself. Basically energy weapons are designed around spike damage because that is the only way they are competitive in this game. Considering you want to force chain fire only exacerbates this because energy weapons are also typically smaller requiring them to be stacked to be competitive to begin with.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2016 - 01:42 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

What math fail? That statement was correct.

5 different people aiming (aiming is trivial, per your own words) presumably at CT because that is how you kill mechs, so I don't see 5 different people aiming 5 different places.

Could you please show me my own words in which I said aiming was "trivial"? What I in fact said is that we are all accurate enough that a wasted alpha is of little concern, Please stop putting words in my mouth.

75% more damage overall would satisfy my argument by itself, but when you factor in that there is only so much armor and internals, the probability goes even higher. Your failure was one of omission.
Those 5 different pilots will be in 5 different positions relative to the presumably moving target.

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

This is honestly a stupid argument, but its just as stupid as expecting to be out of position, getting pushed by 6-10 mechs and surviving more than a few seconds.

I never said anything about being out of position. One could be in the middle of a firing line full of friendlies, but if you are "Charlie", you are "Charlie". Do you now also see where 100 points less damage in the initial salvo might be more survivable?

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

The basis for your argument sucks man. If I wanted to play BT, I would play BT. This is MechWarrior, alpha striking and group firing is the norm, chainfiring is the exception.

Your basis is flawed. Every previous MechWarrior title was based on single player PVE.
What reason does PGI have for putting "A BattleTech Game" in the title if there is little resemblance to BattleTech?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

What reason does PGI have for putting "A BattleTech Game" in the title if there is little resemblance to BattleTech?

Because there is more to battletech than forced chain fire perhaps?

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

I never said anything about being out of position. One could be in the middle of a firing line full of friendlies, but if you are "Charlie", you are "Charlie". Do you now also see where 100 points less damage in the initial salvo might be more survivable?

Then you rotate, the whole point of being in a firing line is to disallow an enemy to poke you at once. If they happen to be that coordinated however then you chose the wrong tactic and that's the risk you take for doing that in the first place, the weakness of a firing line is being encompassed and coordinated pokes. If you are in the open ground, then you should always expect that the enemy may potentially focus you down. If you are poking however and the enemy focuses you down, then you were making bad pokes to begin with.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2016 - 01:47 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 10 August 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

Your basis is flawed. Every previous MechWarrior title was based on single player PVE.
What reason does PGI have for putting "A BattleTech Game" in the title if there is little resemblance to BattleTech?

MechAssault was a BattleTech game too. Not that I'm advocating that garbage, but just because it says A BattleTech Game doesn't mean that it has to line up with BattleTech 1:1 (and which one? because the BattleTech novels don't line up with TT BattleTech perfectly either). And why is alpha striking more suitable for PVE than PVP? Because the environment doesn't get its feelings hurt and ego bruised?

And no I don't think 100 less damage on the first salvo makes a difference because if the next salvo is coming 0.5 seconds later, it doesn't ******* matter. Saying "exponentially" is misleading, you have a slightly better chance of survival, but assuming the 5 people shooting you are actually only 5 people and they don't have potato aim, your either dead now (after the .7-.9 second burn time technically) or dead 0.5 seconds later, Energy Draw will not save you.

I'm not making up the "not being in the wrong place at the wrong time thing". If it was a unanimous issue than everybody would be plagued by quick deaths. On pretty much every occasion that I get killed "quickly" I can point out exactly what I did wrong. Its typically a product of not paying attention, being greedy, being relaxed, tired, under the influence, being greedy, etc.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

You still aren't getting it, precise spike damage is the point of having alpha oriented weapons, if DPS is the only thing that matters then it will boil down to just that, which combination of weapons get you the best DPS. Stack that, push, win, repeat. That will be the MO for every successful drop dec because you can no longer do precise spike damage, just precise damage over time. Aiming isn't a problem when you can just enmasse death ball at the enemy without fear of precise spike damage wrecking you, just massed dakka.

Do you mean as opposed to get the highest alpha, stack that, push, win, rinse, repeat?
The exact argument you are making can be made about alpha strikes, just with lower TTK.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

This isn't the BT universe, this is based on it. I will say it again, Mechwarrior does not nor should it be, a 1:1 with the BT universe, just like TT is not 1:1 with the lore/fluff.

It does not have to be 1:1, but in situations wher it can either be closer or not, the choice should always be closer.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

Tonnage of the mech doesn't really matter, only weight class does currently which blurs that reasoning. The chain fire could potentially make the AC20 build better, but considering it is worse in everything it won't.

Let's try it and see.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

It is never a suitable rationale for a balance discussion, ever, only a bonus if that balance change happens to line up with reality.

We can agree to disagree. IMO it is a solid rationale. Although I am in the camp that wants the game to be more sim-like.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

Except they are going to seriously alter weapons to actually make them worthwhile, AC2s, SRM2s, MGs, SLs already have issues, and you want to exacerbate them and then try and balance them to try and make up for the loss, good luck with that.

Like I said, there are 10 other balancing factors that could and should be used other than relying on alpha-ability. It is a double edged sword, how do you make a weapon good by itself without making it OP if boated, because all of the damage goes to the same place.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:35 PM, said:

That is the way alpha oriented weapons work, they are meant to spike damage because that is their sole advantage over something that has higher DPS like AC5s.

What "basis" in the BT universe is there for "alpha oriented" weapons? I've never come across that term in any of the TROs or other lore.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Gas Guzzler, on 10 August 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

MechAssault was a BattleTech game too. Not that I'm advocating that garbage, but just because it says A BattleTech Game doesn't mean that it has to line up with BattleTech 1:1 (and which one? because the BattleTech novels don't line up with TT BattleTech perfectly either)

Hey now, I liked MechAssault for what it was

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Because there is more to battletech than forced chain fire perhaps?

There is more to it, but who is the arbiter of what stays and what goes? And if something COULD stay, then I believe it SHOULD stay.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Then you rotate, the whole point of being in a firing line is to disallow an enemy to poke you at once. If they happen to be that coordinated however then you chose the wrong tactic and that's the risk you take for doing that in the first place, the weakness of a firing line is being encompassed and coordinated pokes. If you are in the open ground, then you should always expect that the enemy may potentially focus you down. If you are poking however and the enemy focuses you down, then you were making bad pokes to begin with.

But it was not "Charlie's" fault for following orders. The player did nothing wrong.
That argument was against the person who assumed that people only got insta-gibbed due to their own mistakes.