61 replies to this topic

[RestosIII]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

No existing character in the universe perhaps has done this? In the novels does it give the load out for every mech in the field? Besides this, if there is evidence that pilots configured their own mechs then anybody in the game is not only doing what was possible in other games as well, but playing a role of a pilot doing what they wanted to their mech.

Make it so that mech customization outside of small ammo amounts is prohibitively expensive and takes a minimum of hours for it to be completed after making the order, plus requiring the proper equipment to actually do the job, and then you have a single foot to stand on for this argument. Until then? Nope.

[1453 R]

The issue is that 'lore' means "the unmodified 'Mechs introduced in the 3025 TRO" to many folks. They kvetch and moan and level cruel remarks against people who put autocannons in a Warhammer's torso because the Warhammer is the most iconic of iconic 'Mechs and many folks figure the most iconic thing about it are its impractically long PPC arms.

Similar so on and so forth for other designs.

They have a certain aesthetic in their mind that BattleTech, and any derived properties such as MechWarrior, should adhere to, and anything that does not adhere to that aesthetic is Not BattleTech. Meta fits don't adhere to that aesthetic at all.

Also realize that you're dealing with tabletop gamers, who have a word for people who break a game's aesthetic in pursuit of personal power/ability - "Munchkin". These are folks who're perfectly happy to lose a fight/campaign if the fight/campaign was engrossing and immersive and the story that was told was one that required the players to lose.

When you get folks who'd rather lose a fight than break their immersion/aesthetic, nothing you can ever say will get them to not be jerks to folks they perceive as munchkins. Sad but true.

Edited by 1453 R, 12 January 2017 - 11:53 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bombast, on 12 January 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

Because Medium/PPC boating was, and arguably still is, the great meta cheese of Battletech, and many of the previous Mechwarrior games. If meta humping was lore, then everything would have some variant or custom load out that obeyed that principle.

Fact is, most lore custom variants were not made to be meta. They were made to be interesting, or as logical conclusions to the mechs in question. If any did stumble into the meta for the particular game rules of the time, it was entirely by accident, not design.

None of this, of course, is a knock against build mechs to meta in this game. Only against the bizarre argument you seem to be trying to construct.



That to. I can't recall the advanced customization rules like I can the construction rules, but I seem to remember them being... hard. What are they in, Strategic Operations? Or am I remember home rules?

current gen book, I don't know offhand. Was in the simple Rules of Warfare, etc, in previous editions, but I think it's in the Tactical Operations handbook?

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 12 January 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

The issue is that 'lore' means "the unmodified 'Mechs introduced in the 3025 TRO" to many folks. They kvetch and moan and level cruel remarks against people who put autocannons in a Warhammer's torso because the Warhammer is the most iconic of iconic 'Mechs and many folks figure the most iconic thing about it are its impractically long PPC arms.

Similar so on and

They have a certain aesthetic in their mind that BattleTech, and any derived properties such as MechWarrior, should adhere to, and anything that does not adhere to that aesthetic is Not BattleTech. Meta fits don't adhere to that aesthetic at all.

Also realize that you're dealing with tabletop gamers, who have a word for people who break a game's aesthetic in pursuit of personal power/ability - "Munchkin". These are folks who're perfectly happy to lose a fight/campaign if the fight/campaign was engrossing and immersive and the story that was told was one that required the players to lose.

When you get folks who'd rather lose a fight than break their immersion/aesthetic, nothing you can ever say will get them to not be jerks to folks they perceive as munchkins. Sad but true.

Yeah, that's a pretty extreme generalization about a relatively small percentage of TT players. Cathy hardly speaks for everyone... but hey, can't help it if basement dwelling EZMode Meta trolls can't appreciate the factors that actually make an IP the IP. (see, two can make baseless and insulting generalizations for the point of "trying to make a point")

I'd say I'm sorry for preferring to see Archers with LRMs and Warhammers with PPCs in their arms... but I'd be lying. It's kind of like I prefer my Star Wars to not have the Empire using X Wings, or my Star Trek to not have the Federation make some Borg/Romulan Monstrosity and calling it a day.

Crazy right... that I prefer generic vanilla gunbag FPS mentality to stay mostly with generic vanilla gunbag FPS games, like Titanfall, Hawken, Battlefield, CoD, etc..... and actual respect for lore on IP titles. But I suppose every single game title made needs to cater purely to the generic vanilla gunbag shooter crowd....and the people who actually want to play those IPs can just be damned.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 January 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

Actually, you are right.  Feel free to make any Mods you want...just make sure to meticulously follow the canon Rules for Customization, NOT the Rules for Construction, and that your character has earned the requisite X million Cbills, etc. And be willing to pilot it with any negative modifiers that happen courtesy failed tech rolls, along the way.

Good luck with that.

Well I am almost certain to regret voluntary interaction with you, here goes. So where are these rules found? How do the tech roles apply? Is this a table top thing or something from the novels?

[MacClearly]

Bombast, on 12 January 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

Because Medium/PPC boating was, and arguably still is, the great meta cheese of Battletech, and many of the previous Mechwarrior games.  If meta humping was lore, then everything would have some variant or custom load out that obeyed that principle.

Fact is, most lore custom variants were not made to be meta.  They were made to be interesting, or as logical conclusions to the mechs in question.  If any did stumble into the meta for the particular game rules of the time, it was entirely by accident, not design.

None of this, of course, is a knock against build mechs to meta in this game.  Only against the bizarre argument you seem to be trying to construct.


That to.  I can't recall the advanced customization rules like I can the construction rules, but I seem to remember them being... hard.  What are they in, Strategic Operations?  Or am I remember home rules?

What I am going off is that there are custom variants. So customization is realistic and possible. You seem to be referencing only custom mechs that exist by characters that actually exist in the universe. I am saying that we are our own character and we can customise our mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Well I am almost certain to regret voluntary interaction with you, here goes. So where are these rules found? How do the tech roles apply? Is this a table top thing or something from the novels?

Table Top.

Current Rules, I believe are found here.
http://www.sarna.net...egic_Operations

In the novels, actual custom mechs are rare as hen's teeth, and even most of the primary characters drive stock models of the mechs, found in the TROs. They do exist though, mostly as the exception, and occasionally, in really mary sue plot armor manners (See Archer Christifori's magic Penetrator, or the novel Double Blind)

Again, customization is possible, it's just not generally easy, or cost effective, in most cases. But especially in the 3025 era, oftentimes, modifications happened by pure necessity (if you drive Griffin and work for Marik, and lose your PPC, chances are very high you won't be able to replace it, since Marik can't build PPCs at said time, so bang, obviously, necessity dictates putting a Large Laser or AC5 in it's place. The difficulty of the operation being affected by the severity of the change, and quality of facilities available. A wealthy mechwarrior on Solaris in 3053 has a lot more opportunity to make conversions than a Periphery Merc in 3025). Solaris one often sees mods, but since they don't have to hold up for long campaigns in hostile environs without maintenance, they are often nowhere near as durable as an actual Field Mech needs to be.

I am the last one to say "no customization". I'm just not a fan of unlimited, no repercussion customization that previous Mechwarrior Titles have apparently trained people to expect. It does remove a lot of flavor from the lore, and also tends to feed into wildly unbalanced Metas, being much more difficult to balance. That said, pure stock only, is also not lore, and can get just as stale.

As for any regrets about voluntary interaction with me, well, that sounds like a you problem. *shrugs*

[MacClearly]

RestosIII, on 12 January 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

Make it so that mech customization outside of small ammo amounts is prohibitively expensive and takes a minimum of hours for it to be completed after making the order, plus requiring the proper equipment to actually do the job, and then you have a single foot to stand on for this argument. Until then? Nope.

No problem then because you must be waiting days after a match for your mech to be finished being repaired if not a month or longer following this stringent logic....

[Bombast]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

What I am going off is that there are custom variants. So customization is realistic and possible. You seem to be referencing only custom mechs that exist by characters that actually exist in the universe. I am saying that we are our own character and we can customise our mechs.

If that is all you're saying, then this whole thread is pointless drivel, constructed either out of fear of some weird strawman that doesn't exist, or in some misguided attempt to antagonize a group of players on the forum who's number I can count on one hand.

Can mechs be customized in the lore? Yes. Was it rare and expensive? Yes. Is every single player from every single Mechwarrior game (And most of the Mechwarrior RPG TT games) a 'special' character that gets to make these changes? Yes.

A whole thread, dedicated to mocking people who don't exist with lore questions that were answered in the ****ing 80s. This isn't even good enough for K-Town.

Edited by Bombast, 12 January 2017 - 12:23 PM.

[FupDup]

Actually, a lot of MWO's "custom meta mechs" are already mirrored by some TT standard stock builds. Devastator, Thunder Hawk, Hellstar, Rifleman IIC, etc...

It's funny that despite many of the deviations PGI made from the source material, our meta is frequently similar to TT's meta.

Edited by FupDup, 12 January 2017 - 12:23 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

Oh absolutely it's my problem if I was to expect logic or reason to enter the mix or if I had an expected you to not be a douche nozzle in some way. So since we are talking about table top vs. video game rules then, it completely makes sense that they would be different due to entirely different mechanics. So someone reading sarna could see that there are custom variants,especially by significant pilots and set out playing the role of a significant pilot themselves. Pretty much every quick play map we have in game is more like solaris than it is akin to a prolonged war anyways. Front loading of armour is a prime example of this. In a vast expansive environment you wouldn't want such an achilles heel.

Only person I see making a stink, or acting like a "douchenozzle" (your own term) here....would be you. Get your panties in a bunch pretty easy, don't you? As for logic...it's pretty hard to demand it, when we are still waiting for you to demonstrate it in this post. Reason? You just replied, in a pointlessly aggressive manner, to a very well reasoned, non attacking post, so there you have it. The problem appears to be...with you.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 12 January 2017 - 12:36 PM.

[RestosIII]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

Oh absolutely it's my problem if I was to expect logic or reason to enter the mix or if I had an expected you to not be a douche nozzle in some way. So since we are talking about table top vs. video game rules then, it completely makes sense that they would be different due to entirely different mechanics. So someone reading sarna could see that there are custom variants,especially by significant pilots and set out playing the role of a significant pilot themselves. Pretty much every quick play map we have in game is more like solaris than it is akin to a prolonged war anyways. Front loading of armour is a prime example of this. In a vast expansive environment you wouldn't want such an achilles heel.

Pretty much every post I've seen you make recently is trying to pick a fight with someone. Maybe you should step back and maybe stop insulting people constantly.

[Bombast]

FupDup, on 12 January 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

It's funny that despite many of the deviations PGI made from the source material, our meta is frequently similar to TT's meta.

It may be funny, but not really surprising. Most games, not just BT/MW, favor really big, front loading guns (Gauss/PPCs) and bee sting spam (Medium/Small Laser Boating).

Edited by Bombast, 12 January 2017 - 12:37 PM.

[Metus regem]

FupDup, on 12 January 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

Actually, a lot of MWO's "custom meta mechs" are already mirrored by some TT standard stock builds. Devastator, Thunder Hawk, Hellstar, Rifleman IIC, etc...

It's funny that despite many of the deviations PGI made from the source material, our meta is frequently similar to TT's meta.

The good guns will always be the good guns. With the exception of the AC/10, in TT it is a fantastic weapon, MWO it's in a weird place.

[FupDup]

Metus regem, on 12 January 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

The good guns will always be the good guns. With the exception of the AC/10, in TT it is a fantastic weapon, MWO it's in a weird place.

If anything it was worse in TT than MWO, relative to its peers...namely the PPC. The PPC lets you save so much tonnage and get a bit more range, with the only drawback being a minimum range. Don't say heat, because your saved tonnage lets you mount enough heatsinks to completely remove that downside. And that's just with 3025 SHS, once you hit DHS then it's ggclose. You don't have ammo explosions with a PPC, so your mech will survive longer too.

In MWO it can at least shoot much faster than the PPC.

Edited by FupDup, 12 January 2017 - 12:41 PM.

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 January 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

Yeah, that's a pretty extreme generalization about a relatively small percentage of TT players. Cathy hardly speaks for everyone... but hey, can't help it if basement dwelling EZMode Meta trolls can't appreciate the factors that actually make an IP the IP. (see, two can make baseless and insulting generalizations for the point of "trying to make a point")

I'd say I'm sorry for preferring to see Archers with LRMs and Warhammers with PPCs in their arms... but I'd be lying. It's kind of like I prefer my Star Wars to not have the Empire using X Wings, or my Star Trek to not have the Federation make some Borg/Romulan Monstrosity and calling it a day.

Crazy right... that I prefer generic vanilla gunbag FPS mentality to stay mostly with generic vanilla gunbag FPS games, like Titanfall, Hawken, Battlefield, CoD, etc..... and actual respect for lore on IP titles. But I suppose every single game title made needs to cater purely to the generic vanilla gunbag shooter crowd....and the people who actually want to play those IPs can just be damned.

Bishop, man?

The problem is when loreheads like Cathy try and belittle or denigrate anyone who plays MWO as MWO, and not as "Convenient Tabletop Simulator 2017"

In this game there are no Rules for Customization. There's the 'MechLab. Telling people that they're bad people and should feel bad for using the MechLab Piranha gives them is...well, bad. In a game like MWO, telling folks to deliberately play builds that are really bad at accomplishing the objectives given in MWO because those builds hold the special distinction of being written up in a TRO somewhere is sort of counterproductive.

You know full well I'm not a "generic vanilla gunbag", I distinctly recall you poking your nose into a couple of Zellbrigen threads recently. But people would like to play MWO and not suck doing it, and for those guys there are certain requirements to be met. Screaming at them for seeking to meet those requirements, or even just compromise and do a halfway build, is not cool.

besides. Loreheads are getting two games of their very own - HBS' BattleTech is going to be 115% Succession Wars-era lore bonanza, and MW5 is also smack in the 3025-er Best Lore Basket people keep going on about. The campaign folks are getting their game twice over. Might mebbe possibly the Solaris fans can have just a little twinge of their game over here in MWO without getting their d!cks bitten off by loreheads every time they move guns around on their 'Mechs?

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 12 January 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

Bishop, man?

The problem is when loreheads like Cathy try and belittle or denigrate anyone who plays MWO as MWO, and not as "Convenient Tabletop Simulator 2017"

In this game there are no Rules for Customization. There's the 'MechLab. Telling people that they're bad people and should feel bad for using the MechLab Piranha gives them is...well, bad. In a game like MWO, telling folks to deliberately play builds that are really bad at accomplishing the objectives given in MWO because those builds hold the special distinction of being written up in a TRO somewhere is sort of counterproductive.

You know full well I'm not a "generic vanilla gunbag", I distinctly recall you poking your nose into a couple of Zellbrigen threads recently. But people would like to play MWO and not suck doing it, and for those guys there are certain requirements to be met. Screaming at them for seeking to meet those requirements, or even just compromise and do a halfway build, is not cool.

besides. Loreheads are getting two games of their very own - HBS' BattleTech is going to be 115% Succession Wars-era lore bonanza, and MW5 is also smack in the 3025-er Best Lore Basket people keep going on about. The campaign folks are getting their game twice over. Might mebbe possibly the Solaris fans can have just a little twinge of their game over here in MWO without getting their d!cks bitten off by loreheads every time they move guns around on their 'Mechs?

Bro, I'm just responding to the very aggressive tone and generalization of your post. The Cathy's are an extreme minority.

And we'll see how true to game we get on those... Forum yammering already severely altered this game from it's original proposed course, and I would not be shocked, at least with MW5, to see the same parties successfully manage to derail that title, too.

The OP already started from, and has maintained a needlessly confrontational posture, against a nearly nonexistent "issue", really felt your post was doing nothing but to further fuel the flamebaiting of the OP.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 12 January 2017 - 12:46 PM.

[Metus regem]

FupDup, on 12 January 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

If anything it was worse in TT than MWO, relative to its peers...namely the PPC. The PPC lets you save so much tonnage and get a bit more range, with the only drawback being a minimum range. Don't say heat, because your saved tonnage lets you mount enough heatsinks to completely remove that downside. And that's just with 3025 SHS, once you hit DHS then it's ggclose.

In MWO it can at least shoot much faster than the PPC.

If only mounting one PPC or one AC/10, then yes the PPC was the better choice, but as soon as you add a second AC/10 or PPC it becomes a different story, that second PPC is going to cost you a boat load of tonnage to keep it relatively cool.

For example, look at the Warhammer WHM-6R with twin PPC's and an additional 8 SHS to try and keep the heat under control. That second PPC effectively costs 15 tons... for the same tonnage that's an AC/10+1t of ammo+2 SHS, that's 10 rounds of actual shooting with an AC/10 with +1 heat, rather than +2 heat from the second PPC+8SHS

How ever you are right, once DHS come into play, the PPC is a no-brainier choice, DHS in the engine really did make energy weapons unbalanced.

Edited by Metus regem, 12 January 2017 - 12:47 PM.

[Snowbluff]

FupDup, on 12 January 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

Actually, a lot of MWO's "custom meta mechs" are already mirrored by some TT standard stock builds. Devastator, Thunder Hawk, Hellstar, Rifleman IIC, etc...

It's funny that despite many of the deviations PGI made from the source material, our meta is frequently similar to TT's meta.

It's because "not-meta" is unrealistic. Stock Warhammer is terrible, guys. Who would make a war machine like this? Low hardpoints is a really strange way to make a robot.

Same goes for the "logistics nightmare" of custom omnimechs. You know what is a logistics nightmare? Not having extra weapons to fit onto your omnimechs when one is lost to a critical hit. It takes, what, 30 minutes to rearmor and refit an omni? I mean, if you're going to bring up "realistic logistical problems," but swear by the Warhammer, what's the point?

[RestosIII]

1453 R, on 12 January 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

Bishop, man?

The problem is when loreheads like Cathy try and belittle or denigrate anyone who plays MWO as MWO, and not as "Convenient Tabletop Simulator 2017"

In this game there are no Rules for Customization. There's the 'MechLab. Telling people that they're bad people and should feel bad for using the MechLab Piranha gives them is...well, bad. In a game like MWO, telling folks to deliberately play builds that are really bad at accomplishing the objectives given in MWO because those builds hold the special distinction of being written up in a TRO somewhere is sort of counterproductive.

You know full well I'm not a "generic vanilla gunbag", I distinctly recall you poking your nose into a couple of Zellbrigen threads recently. But people would like to play MWO and not suck doing it, and for those guys there are certain requirements to be met. Screaming at them for seeking to meet those requirements, or even just compromise and do a halfway build, is not cool.

besides. Loreheads are getting two games of their very own - HBS' BattleTech is going to be 115% Succession Wars-era lore bonanza, and MW5 is also smack in the 3025-er Best Lore Basket people keep going on about. The campaign folks are getting their game twice over. Might mebbe possibly the Solaris fans can have just a little twinge of their game over here in MWO without getting their d!cks bitten off by loreheads every time they move guns around on their 'Mechs?

There's a difference between telling people they need to run lore builds, and what the OP is saying. OP is acting like meta builds are lore, which is incorrect. Of course people should be able to modify their mechs, but acting like it's 100% lore accurate is annoying.