51 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Gurren913, on 26 August 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

Can we do a time-skip to FedCom civil war era so IS mechs have weapons that can compete with clans? This could also facilitate the removal of quirks and make it easier for newer players.

IS already have weapons that compete with Clans,
Clan have Range, but IS have better Cycle,

[El Bandito]

First, I want the rest of the IS version of ER lasers, LBX cannons, SSRMs, UACs. And then we can decide where to go.

[LT. HARDCASE]

I just want Light Fusion Engines.

MWO can't be balanced without them.

Edited by LT. HARDCASE, 26 August 2016 - 05:15 PM.

[LastKhan]

Kay, they move forward as they will eventually regardless. Toss new weapons in the game which could be good but, as current trends go here it will be more of a imbalance and a nightmare. Future mechs / packs ie; an mk2 wont make the game any different then its current state. New engines might bring some more variety if implemented carefully.

The few things MW;O is heavily lacking to me is story, Battletech's bread and butter. The politics, the reasons for the conflicts, the places, etc are nonexistent here. It just makes this game an arcade shooter then what its title says; "a battletech game." Remember they said "they wouldve just made another mech assault" when in reality they freaking did! its mwo!

Edited by LastKhan, 26 August 2016 - 05:52 PM.

[Gurren913]

Imperius, on 26 August 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

No there is no timeline in MWO there never has been. We don't need to add another "bucket"! You can just quietly move to HBS "people's lord and saviors" (though not mechwarrior and a completely different game) you can stay there and the clans will never bother you may all your dreams of living the past come true.

There is literally a clock that tells you what time it is in the game universe. MWO uses a timeline to release mechs.

Metus regem, on 26 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Then they will completely outclass anything else in the game. Why take a UAC/5 or UAC/10 for the IS when you can take a RAC/5 that is only 10t and can do up to a 25 damage burst fire?

A UAC usually jams all about the same rate, so the bigger the UAC, the more damage you can do before jamming.

Metus regem, on 26 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

The IS UAC/10 and UAC/20, how should they fire? there is precedent for them to fire a single shot on double tap, just like the IS UAC/5, but they were copied from Clan Tech, so should they fire in a burst? If they are single shot, they will be OP as anything could be in MWO, but if they are burst fire, how should their damage be divided up, so that they are not just out right inferior to Clan versions?

The other games say they fire a double shot on a single click. I think they would be rather OP if recoil isn't introduced in the patch that adds them.

Edited by Gurren913, 26 August 2016 - 05:48 PM.

[lagartx3]

LastKhan, on 26 August 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

The few things MW;O is heavily lacking to me is story, Battletech's bread and butter. The politics, the reasons for the conflicts, the places, etc are nonexistent here. It just makes this game an arcade shooter then what its title says; "a battletech game." Remember they said "they wouldve just made another mech assault" when in reality they freaking did! its mwo.

I have yo agree with you, im a new player, and im not really close to the lore and the cannon of BattleTech itself, but id love to (and i honestly was specting to) see and read about that univrerse in a game well... called MechWarrior... but so far i've got nothing from it, not even some basic planetary info, wich seems to be always absent or ''Currently unavailible'' in the CW drops...

something so simple as some quick lore about your newly aquired mech, like, year of production and its usual roles, etc would add some depth to the game, it doesnt really makes much of a difference, but it would be soooooo damm nice to have that IN the game, instead of having to always reference myself trough SARNA and the forums.

[KHETTI]

Personally i say F**k it, move the timeline forward, i want IS omni-mechs.

[LastKhan]

lagartx3, on 26 August 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

I have to agree with you, im a new player, and im not really close to the lore and the cannon of BattleTech itself, but id love to (and i honestly was specting to) see and read about that univrerse in a game well... called MechWarrior... but so far i've got nothing from it, not even some basic planetary info, wich seems to be always absent or ''Currently unavailible'' in the CW drops...

something so simple as some quick lore about your newly aquired mech, like, year of production and its usual roles, etc would add some depth to the game, it doesnt really makes much of a difference, but it would be soooooo damm nice to have that IN the game, instead of having to always reference myself trough SARNA and the forums.

And thats a damn shame and a missed opportunity pre steam launch to bring in some new blood into battletech by giving them an idea what is going on and the reasons behind the battles with some lore tidbits. They kinda do for the mechpacks when it comes to mechs but the rest is a "gotta find it yourself". I would go one step further and have the maps of actual cities and places where historic BT battles took place but that might be to extensive.

Imperius, on 26 August 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

No there is no timeline in MWO there never has been. We don't need to add another "bucket"! You can just quietly move to HBS "people's lord and saviors" (though not mechwarrior and a completely different game) you can stay there and the clans will never bother you may all your dreams of living the past come true.

At least HBS has a decent track record on making decent games like necropolis and shadowrun. Would i call them the "lord and saviors"? no, but i know who is backstage designing and making the Battletech game and they have at least some sort of good credentials. I wont get on the hype train but if they delve deep into the lore of the game then it already surpasses MW;O imo. The clan invasion was something he talked about so who knows maybe in a expansion.

Edited by LastKhan, 26 August 2016 - 06:38 PM.

[Requiemking]

This would be nice, but there is still a problem to me. How do you account for mechs that were made into the potent death-dealers they were by virtue of the tech in them?

For example, the Lancelot. At first glance, it is nothing more than a slightly faster, all energy Jaegermech. However, within it's chassis the Lancelot carried one of the most powerful targeting systems ever created, the KBC Starsight Model 3. This system allowed the Lancelot to track and prioritise hundreds of targets and projectiles (IE missiles) at once, transforming it into THE go-to AA battlemech. How does one replicate that kind of power in MWO, a game with hilariously bad targeting and very little incentive to lock targets unless you are running LRMs or Streaks.

[Imperius]

LastKhan, on 26 August 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

And thats a damn shame and a missed opportunity pre steam launch to bring in some new blood into battletech by giving them an idea what is going on and the reasons behind the battles with some lore tidbits. They kinda do for the mechpacks when it comes to mechs but the rest is a "gotta find it yourself". I would go one step further and have the maps of actual cities and places where historic BT battles took place but that might be to extensive.



At least HBS has a decent track record on making decent games like necropolis and shadowrun. Would i call them the "lord and saviors"? no, but i know who is backstage designing and making the Battletech game and they have at least some sort of good credentials. I wont get on the hype train but if they delve deep into the lore of the game then it already surpasses MW;O imo. The clan invasion was something he talked about so who knows maybe in a expansion.

I never said HBS is bad or the game won't be better. I know the first one will not have clans, and it's not my type of game anyway. I just hope it removes some of the lets stay stuck in time forever crowd off the forums already. They have done enough damage to MWO.

[LastKhan]

Imperius, on 26 August 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

I never said HBS is bad or the game won't be better. I know the first one will not have clans, and it's not my type of game anyway. I just hope it removes some of the lets stay stuck in time forever crowd off the forums already. They have done enough damage to MWO.

just stating HBS's track record compared to PGI's. Not saying you said one way or the other, like you said "its not your game" and thats fine everyone haves their preferences. Honestly i think PGI can do its own damage just fine without this forever crowd you speak of, whoever that is.

Edited by LastKhan, 26 August 2016 - 08:02 PM.

[Spheroid]

@Metus: What if DPS/ton was equalized for autocannons by increasing coodown for LAC-2/5? I would still take the heavier versions in many situations.

[The Zohan]

Wtf is it with stupdid ideas lately. What we need is not more headaches to balance, we actually need less of this. The games balance is at an all high from my perspective and energy draw might make it even better. Quirks should get toned back, I agree, and PGI should think of taking some hardpoints away from the worst offenders. Ideally, they´d reduce weapons customizing, especially on Battlemechs but I doubt we´ll see that. Ideally that would be achieved by a system that reduces quirks when you change the stock loadout to the point where you might get negative quirks, especially when you start boating one weapon.

What I want to see is more maps, not recycled old ones. Plus the old ones back in the rotation. Next step would be to ditch CW altogether as I doubt they´ll rework it, not after the mess that has been phase 3 but I digress.

[Dino Banino]

I'm not too sure about the time skip, but did someone say "remove quirks"?

Yes, please. Yes, yes, and yes.

Quirks need to go.

[Metus regem]

Spheroid, on 26 August 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

@Metus: What if DPS/ton was equalized for autocannons by increasing coodown for LAC-2/5? I would still take the heavier versions in many situations.

Thing is the LAC/s use standard AC/ammo, lose some range... LAC/2 gives up 6 hexes max range and LAC/5 gives up 3, but they also get 2-3t lighter... LAC/2 is 4t and LAC/5 is 5t. So now it becomes a real question of how important is that extra 90-180m is to you, worth the extra tonnage and crit spaces? To me, not so much. I can honestly see the AC/2 and AC/5 being replaced by the LAC/s if they get in.

[Tarl Cabot]

KHETTI, on 26 August 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

Personally i say F**k it, move the timeline forward, i want IS omni-mechs.

And if PGI has IS omni setup like Clan omnis, all incoming fire will be focused on side torso since the current isXL engine is disabled when one side torso is removed, in a game with no actual engine crits.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 August 2016 - 12:00 PM.

[mogs01gt]

**** all this non-sense, just give me my real Yen Lo Wang!!!

[Metus regem]

mogs01gt, on 27 August 2016 - 06:17 AM, said:

**** all this non-sense, just give me my real Yen Lo Wang!!!

We'd need melee....

[mogs01gt]

Metus regem, on 27 August 2016 - 06:18 AM, said:

We'd need melee....

People would complain that mechs with hand actuators would be OP.

[Metus regem]

mogs01gt, on 27 August 2016 - 06:21 AM, said:

People would complain that mechs with hand actuators would be OP.

Yup, but the Atlas would be so bad-***...