3
Wolfways, on 21 November 2017 - 03:08 PM, said:
No. You're assuming bad teamwork on the IS side.
That side has more mechs to flank and/or pour firepower into the other side.
I do and would. So what?
Yes
No
That's what I said. Most players are "me" players.
I'd love to see some official explanation as to why something that works in every wargame ever did not work in Battletech because it sounds so ridiculous. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have screwed up the battle values in which case it would have been easier to adjust them instead of changing the whole game.
Also, pgi say a lot of things.
That side has more mechs to flank and/or pour firepower into the other side.
I do and would. So what?
Yes
No
That's what I said. Most players are "me" players.
I'd love to see some official explanation as to why something that works in every wargame ever did not work in Battletech because it sounds so ridiculous. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have screwed up the battle values in which case it would have been easier to adjust them instead of changing the whole game.
Also, pgi say a lot of things.
It doesn't work like that in every other game. Every other wargame may have individual units that balance via numbers but they also have top tier performers. For example in WH40K while orks and Tyranids have horde style balanced individual units, they also mix them with units perfectly capable of mixing it up with Space Marines one to one. Every other game has a comparable balance of units with higher level of power so there's always an option for 1 to 1; just that some factions tend to skew one direction or the other in majority. Beyond that they all have a set of rock/paper/scissors balance mechanics brought about by portable weapon setups, mages/psykers or the like vs large numbers/heavy armor/individual big damage.
Battletech had none of that. At all. It had 2 factions, one was better in every way than the other. The other just had more numbers and plot armor. So it was an absolute failure exactly because the Clans were the Clans. The original concept for the Clans had them in Star League era tech, which the IS had in a minority. However Clan pilots had a better gunnery/piloting average and as such would do the bidding thing, so they had fewer mechs but better pilots while everyone had largely the same tech base.
That? That would have been balanced. However they opted instead to go with insanely OP Clans and then balance it with story based deus ex - which was an idea of galactic stupidity that's pretty much ****** the franchise in a lot of ways. It did however fulfill the fantasies of numerous munchkins who had a game system designed to let them play totally broken OP mechs but pretend that it was still 'balanced', which it wasn't.
BV never worked. Ever. It was always a guideline, the game was balanced via friendly agreements, because a 4 LPL warhawk would kill anything/anyone, as did any CERPPC build and CERLL build. They were only beaten by vehicle hordes for the IS, which was equally broken. 40 mixed hovertanks and aircraft would wipe 5 Clan mechs before they could shoot enough to kill them all.
It was a failure based fundamental on OP Clan tech. Nobody who talks about wanting 10 v 12 balance has ever, ever brought up that Clans were also in lore supposed to be way better pilots and so argues that only the top 10/20% of players should get to play Clans. That never comes up. It's always people with middling to poor stats who desperately want the game balanced in their favor so they can pretend to be better than they are. Universally. I've never seen an exception to that - never seen a player with great stats argue in favor of that sort of broken balance.
Again though, moot point. It will never happen, because the idea is terrible.
