61 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Metus regem, on 12 January 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

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, that 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

I'm not basing my position on stock variants like the Whammy 6R, I'm just looking at the base stats of the guns themselves.

I'll do my own maths breakdown below. To keep it fair, I will ignore the base 10 SHS you get in the engine. The goal will be to mount enough SHS to keep the weapon fully heat neutral.

AC/10:
Initial weight: 12 tons
Ammo: 1 ton (bare minimum)
Heatsinks: 3 tons (3 heat)
Total weight: 16 tons

PPC:
Initial weight: 7 tons
Heatsinks: 10 tons (10 heat)
Total weight: 17 tons

Okay, so I actually forgot. The PPC will full heatsinks takes an extra ton relative to the AC/10, if you want to completely remove the heat buildup (you can always drop a few).

For that extra 1 ton, you gain:
*3 hexes more range
*Infinite ammo (battlefield longevity, no rearming needed)
*No ammo explosions (survivability)
*Heatsinks to use for crit padding, and a smaller weapon that is less likely to be critted out (harder to disarm)

What you lose:
*1 ton of weight (assuming heat neutrality and ignoring 10 base SHS)
*3 hexes of minimum range

I'm gonna take that PPC because I don't like getting blown up by my own weapons.

Edited by FupDup, 12 January 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[Bombast]

Snowbluff, on 12 January 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

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.

We're veering dangerously towards the 'Are giant humanoid robots sane machines in any respect' argument, which we all know only goes to bad places.

Because really, there's only one good sci-fi robot war machine concept.

[Snowbluff]

I heard the cERPPC was stupidly good in TT. Like, 15 damage, good range, and clan mechs always used 2 slot double heat sinks? Crazy good.

Bombast, on 12 January 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

We're veering dangerously towards the 'Are giant humanoid robots sane machines in any respect' argument, which we all know only goes to bad places.

Because really, there's only one good sci-fi robot war machine concept.

The Marauder is a much more sensible robot in my opinion. It's like a walking tank. But if we're going to have humanoid robots, I don't want to hear complaints about people putting the guns where they would hit things.

Edited by Snowbluff, 12 January 2017 - 12:58 PM.

[FupDup]

Snowbluff, on 12 January 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

I heard the cERPPC was stupidly good in TT. Like, 15 damage, good range, and clan mechs always used 2 slot double heat sinks? Crazy good.

There's also the juicy Clan LPL. It's a PPC that is lighter, smaller, longer-reaching, with no minimum range, and higher accuracy.

[MacClearly]

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 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.

Thank you for this perspective. Personally I am put off by terms such as noob or munchkin. They seem especially silly and childlike. Hard for me to really appreciate why some would be so hardline on fictitious stompy robots and what they should be.

[Metus regem]

FupDup, on 12 January 2017 - 12:50 PM, said:

I'm not basing my position on stock variants like the Whammy 6R, I'm just looking at the base stats of the guns themselves.

I'll do my own maths breakdown below. To keep it fair, I will ignore the base 10 SHS you get in the engine. The goal will be to mount enough SHS to keep the weapon fully heat neutral.

AC/10:
Initial weight: 12 tons
Ammo: 1 ton (bare minimum)
Heatsinks: 3 tons (3 heat)
Total weight: 16 tons

PPC:
Initial weight: 7 tons
Heatsinks: 10 tons (10 heat)
Total weight: 17 tons

Okay, so I actually forgot. The PPC will full heatsinks takes an extra ton relative to the AC/10, if you want to completely remove the heat buildup (you can always drop a few).

For that extra 1 ton, you gain:
*3 hexes more range
*Infinite ammo (battlefield longevity, no rearming needed)
*No ammo explosions (survivability)
*Heatsinks to use for crit padding, and a smaller weapon that is less likely to be critted out (harder to disarm)

What you lose:
*1 ton of weight (assuming heat neutrality and ignoring 10 base SHS)
*3 hexes of minimum range

I'm gonna take that PPC because I don't like getting blown up by my own weapons.

I do find the odds of being dropped to an ammo explosion early, a bit lower than a lot of people make it out to be, especially when talking one ton of ammo for an AC/10. When talking combat endurance, ten rounds of actual shooting is a lot in a 3025 era game... but to each their own.

I've got a 3025 era Marauder that drops the AC/5 and the PPC's to pack 4 Mlas and an AC/10 with more armour (14.5t) as well as packing jump jets (4) and all she will generate, jumping and alpha striking is +3heat/turn... I concder her a massive improvement over the stock MAD-3R.


All that being said, I'm not going to derail this into a PPC vs. AC/10 in 3025 debate, as both are good weapon systems that have strengths and weakness to each other.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 12 January 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

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.

even in MWO....I have graphed out the dual AC10 vs Dual PPC multiple times... it's amazing how quickly the AC10 outstrips the PPCs. And even a single PPC vs AC10... it's amazing how many mechs, even with DHS, start heating up and havingto slow RoF with just one PPC or ERPPC.

Take the Summoner Prime. Just firing the ERPPC by itself, with 14 DHS, you might be surprised how quickly that heat adds up.... whereas the LB-10X of course, never slows RoF until you run out of ammo.

Both have their place, both have their strengths and weaknesses, both here in MWO and in TT. (though in TT, the PPC to AC10 ratio IS off a bit. After all, 2 PPCs plus 10 SHS equals 24 tons. 2 AC10s, plus minimum reasonable ammo load... comes to 28 tons. I have said many times, that even in TT, the AC10 should have always had the same basic stats as the IS LB-10X, then they become a very close match, with the lack of minimum range, and low heat allowing it to pair with secondary weapons.

(2x LB10X + 2x Mlasers equals heat neutral with 10 SHS... 2x PPC +10 SHS, plus 2x Mlasers is 6 waste heat...even if you add 2 more SHS to equal the mass of the extra ammo on the LBX...then you still have 4 waste heat... which would put things pretty close, considering that the ACs can run out of ammo, and ammo can explode)

2x LB10X (22 tons) + 4 tons ammo (4 tons) + 2x Mlasers (2 tons) = 28 tons, 0 waste heat (base 10 SHS)

2x PPC (14 tons) + 12x SHS (12 tons) + 2x MLasers (2 tons) = 28 tons, 4 waste heat (base 10 SHS +12)

The actual base AC10, does suffer in comparison. Not enough to be "terribad" but enough to matter. The Shorter range and extra ton of weight, simply do tilt things to the favor of the PPC... until you start adding secondary weapons into the picture... which most of your 2x PPC mechs have to fire separately, not in tandem with their PPCs... whereas your dual AC10 mechs usual CAN fire them in tandem.

thing simply are not black and white, because of the sheer amount of variables in Battletech/Mechwarrior, in any medium.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 12 January 2017 - 01:13 PM.

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 January 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

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.

We have had previous interaction that was less than positive. I was a part of that sure. It has however set a tone that seems to have not changed. As far as your logic I and reason we disagree. You are saying it's in rules designed for table top with respect to customization. I am saying that it makes sense for a video game with entirely different mechanics to have different rules. Also there is precedent that pilots completely changed their load outs. The Butterbee being a prime example of this.

[MacClearly]

RestosIII, on 12 January 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

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.

Really? Read more perhaps or step back and look two sides. Most of my interaction is benign but I have bumped heads with this guy before. Although it certainly wasn't me on the attack.

[1453 R]

RestosIII, on 12 January 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

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.

I read it more as the OP trying to bring up a justification that might appease hardliner lorehounds for why players in MWO are able to run anything but stock Locusts. Admittedly MacCleary is a very fight-prone guy and there is no appeasing hardliner lorehounds, but yeah. There are, in fact, examples of pilots in the universe refitting their stock GarboMechs for much more rigorous levels of combat, with the classic example being Yen-Lo-Wang. Recognizable as a Centurion in...maybe two of its seventeen or so iterations, before it ended up as basically a fifty-ton Norse berserker with a tower shield. For reasons.

Are we all Justin/Kai Allard-(Liao) or Danai Centrella? No. But who here is willing to stick their hand in the air, cop to being Bob Schmuck/Warrior Joe with not a single distinction to their name, and strip down to one UND ONLY VUN line trooper medium 'Mech running SHS and STD everything?

...yeah, that is a big ask, innit?

So as much as lorehounds hate it, people gonna modify their 'Mechs. That means getting guns higher up, out of vulnerable and low-slung arms whenever possible, and they're not going to use FrankenMech mixed-up weirdness that only barely makes the slightest amount of sense in a campaign setting. Sadly or not, however way you feel about it, that's the way MWO goes.

Edited by 1453 R, 12 January 2017 - 01:16 PM.

[Metus regem]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

We have had previous interaction that was less than positive. I was a part of that sure. It has however set a tone that seems to have not changed. As far as your logic I and reason we disagree. You are saying it's in rules designed for table top with respect to customization. I am saying that it makes sense for a video game with entirely different mechanics to have different rules. Also there is precedent that pilots completely changed their load outs. The Butterbee being a prime example of this.

Butterbee is a stock C1, that uses a maintenance bay level refit to pull the two LRM/15's and replace them with four SMR/6's... it is also important to note that Butterbee is a one off mech and not a standard production refit kit for a Catapult C1. 99.999999999999% of all other Catapluts in universe are standard models by lore

[Snowbluff]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 January 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

The actual base AC10, does suffer in comparison. Not enough to be "terribad" but enough to matter. The Shorter range and extra ton of weight, simply do tilt things to the favor of the PPC... until you start adding secondary weapons into the picture... which most of your 2x PPC mechs have to fire separately, not in tandem with their PPCs... whereas your dual AC10 mechs usual CAN fire them in tandem.

thing simply are not black and white, because of the sheer amount of variables in Battletech/Mechwarrior, in any medium.

This is why I use both! 2 LB10 2 ERPPC MAD IIC. :0

[MacClearly]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 January 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

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.

Exactly how do you reach the conclusion that lore includes pilot customization as confrontational? I did expect people who have lore knowledge to say things that I could learn from. I also admit that I would have been better to not address you at all considering our previous interaction. It was bound to not go well.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Slapping on Gauss Rifles and ERPPCs on one side of your Mech and leave the other half basically empty with a naked arm doesn't seem to be so lore friendly.
A lore friendly Mech will typically have a variety of weapons strapped on a Mech to compensate for other engagement factors and scenarios that will not appear in MWO. If MWO Meta builds were used in BT lore, I doubt they would be fielded en mass. The Gauss/PPC builds will surely suffer when the enemy happen to have brought a lot of infantry/battle armor instead of Mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

We have had previous interaction that was less than positive. I was a part of that sure. It has however set a tone that seems to have not changed. As far as your logic I and reason we disagree. You are saying it's in rules designed for table top with respect to customization. I am saying that it makes sense for a video game with entirely different mechanics to have different rules. Also there is precedent that pilots completely changed their load outs. The Butterbee being a prime example of this.

And if you actually read my posts, I have specifically stated I do support customization. I simply feel limitations to said customization in the end benefits everyone. Yes, TT rules don't translate to Video Game, or vice versa (most times), but they can be used as a solid base principle to design around.

MW3, for instance was the epitome of Open Mechlab. The Edn result, in actual practice? LESS diversity. Why? Because everyone simply looked to what mech had the most favorable hardpoint locations and hitboxes, then ignored literally everything else. So basically, you ended up with a game that had one "optimal" Meta Chassis per weight Class..... and then when you add in the nature of Weapon Meta, likewise, things got even more limited.

By contrast, Fixed numbers of hardpoints, fixed hardpoint types, and even sized hardpoints, add diversity. How? I'll you a couple examples.

You take a Warhammer (Or the Catapult K2) and a Jagermech.

With no limitations, one generally just loads whatever loadout the Jager would use, onto the Warhammer. More mass, better hitboxes, Jager becomes a largely pointless chassis (exception being the Gauss build). Now add in the Mechlab limitations, and if you want a heavy Dakka Build... you take the Jager, and the Warhammer is primarily an Energy Mech with light secondary weapons. Both have a place.

Or one could compare the Wolfhound to the Firestarter.

By MWO rules, without quirks, the Wolfhound has literally no reason to exist. Why? Because literally everything the Wolfhound can do, the Firestarter can do... as well as having more hardpoints, and Jump Jets. Now add in Sized Hardpoints... and the Firestarter literally cannot mount a large Laser or PPC... whereas the Wolfhound can. Thus, each chassis, while still customization, within reason, have a different role, and thus are both useful still.

There are obviously shades of grey in all of this, but as a general rule, some degree of limitations enhances customization and increases diversity of chassis and weapons. So again, I am by no means against customization, and I freely acknowledge one can't really add the RNG tables of TT into MWO. One can use the principles BEHIND those tables though, to inform and add some limitations to the mechlab, preserving both the flavor of the IP, and the ability to customize.

Seems like people like to paint me into one corner or another...despite the fact I have almost always been in the middle, trying to find the delicate balance of Lore Wants with Video Game Medium Reality. While one cannot directly port the one to the other, they CAN co-exist, within reason.

Take that as you will.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 12 January 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

I read it more as the OP trying to bring up a justification that might appease hardliner lorehounds for why players in MWO are able to run anything but stock Locusts. Admittedly MacCleary is a very fight-prone guy and there is no appeasing hardliner lorehounds, but yeah. There are, in fact, examples of pilots in the universe refitting their stock GarboMechs for much more rigorous levels of combat, with the classic example being Yen-Lo-Wang. Recognizable as a Centurion in...maybe two of its seventeen or so iterations, before it ended up as basically a fifty-ton Norse berserker with a tower shield. For reasons.

Are we all Justin/Kai Allard-(Liao) or Danai Centrella? No. But who here is willing to stick their hand in the air, cop to being Bob Schmuck/Warrior Joe with not a single distinction to their name, and strip down to one UND ONLY VUN line trooper medium 'Mech running SHS and STD everything?

...yeah, that is a big ask, innit?

So as much as lorehounds hate it, people gonna modify their 'Mechs. That means getting guns higher up, out of vulnerable and low-slung arms whenever possible, and they're not going to use FrankenMech mixed-up weirdness that only barely makes the slightest amount of sense in a campaign setting. Sadly or not, however way you feel about it, that's the way MWO goes.

copying this from a post I made on that OTHER games forums, where the OP was pushing the opposite of this OP's post...for forced stock play
https://community.ba...ms/threads/5433

"Example of in timeline canon customization:

Yen Lo Wang.

Yes, one can say"But it was the robot of a secret agent man! HAX!"

While true, it's also meaningless, since House Davion couldn't exactly send the NAIS over to Soalris to rebuild the mech of their Covert Agent. It was done by the hand of a Maskirovka Agent, working as a simple tech, in a pretty basic hanger. Not a field swap, but they still, with relatively little issue swapped the AC10 for a 20, dropped the LRMs, swapped armor about and added a hatchet (claws).

Another was the customization the Bounty Hunter performed (several different times) on his custom Marauder.

Also, if you read the actual 3025 TRO under the various Variant sections one often sees a phrase like "A common modification is".

That implies that while mods were rare, expensive, and often difficult, they were very much done in 3025. The scope of mods we can do, should indeed be curtailed, the cost, should often be prohibitive. But it should not be undoable.

Examples:

Stinger: "Some Mechwarriors have altered their Stingers with the help of the Techs, however, dropping items such as the twin machine guns in favor of additional armor and an additional medium laser" -Pretty cut and dried.

Whitworth: "Any other modifications have been made by individual Mech Warriors or by small-unit commanders." - Also to the point.

Centurion: "Innumerable other variants exist in small numbers. MechWarriors should be aware that when they meet a Centurion on the battlefield, there is a very good chance that it will not have standard weaponry." -Inferred, though admittedly not definitively stated.

Quickdraw: "in spite of the sometime usefulness of the massed rearward firepower, many MechWarriors prefer to have most of their weapons pointed ahead of them. Because of this, some Quickdraws have been altered so that the SRM is in the rear torso and the two medium lasers in the front. " -Likewise, strong inference, no remote reference to factory refit, house model, etc.

Thunderbolt: "The Eridani Light Horse mercenary regiment has adapted its Thunderbolts to the unit´s role as a raiding and reconnaissance force" - While a large and respected unit, the ELH does not have contracts with factories, like Wolfs Dragoons do.

Stalker: "The twin LRM-10s are often removed to achieve a lighter ´Mech that still possesses its close-range firepower. Occasionally, Techs remove only one LRM, but remove a number of lasers instead" -Pretty clearly a case by case modification, though admittedly it's removal, that still requires more changes than just yanking parts and leaving gaping holes about.

Sholagar: "Many air lances and defensive squadrons eqquiped with the Sholagar have replaced the short-range missile launcher with two medium lasers in the nose of the fighter" -Specifically refers to individual units making the modification.

So anyone claiming modifications are against lore or canon, are, tbh, wrong. They just are a lot less common, expensive, difficult and people need to stop using the construction rules in place of the customization rules."


I would hope that clarifies my position and though process on the matter, some.

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 01:21 PM, said:

Exactly how do you reach the conclusion that lore includes pilot customization as confrontational? I did expect people who have lore knowledge to say things that I could learn from. I also admit that I would have been better to not address you at all considering our previous interaction. It was bound to not go well.

I am not seeing what is going so "not well". I certainly have not been confrontational at all in this conversation, and have consistently complied to your requests for clarification, as well as providing in depth, reasoned answers. Any issues, appear to be largely of your own making or imagination. As for the OP, the tone taken and approach was deliberately very calculated as a challenge to those who dare not like full customization. You may note I am far from the only person responding on this thread who took your OP, and subsequent posts, in that manner.

Again, the person being combative, etc here... is not me. You seem to take dissenting posts and opinions VERY personally, which is a problem if one desires to post questions and debates, in a public forum.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 12 January 2017 - 01:45 PM.

[MacClearly]

Metus regem, on 12 January 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Butterbee is a stock C1, that uses a maintenance bay level refit to pull the two LRM/15's and replace them with four SMR/6's... it is also important to note that Butterbee is a one off mech and not a standard production refit kit for a Catapult C1. 99.999999999999% of all other Catapluts in universe are standard models by lore

Ok fair enough that it was not common. I can appreciate that. You are however also telling me that this kind of mod would be extremely easy to pull off. So I guess it shouldn't be considered to much of an aberration. The disdain by some for the Warhammer is a good example that has been brought up. My unit fields waves of them in faction and most if not all own at least a couple of 6D's and R's. I guess when you have something that is so good and works so well you get a place for it in your heart. So it can be a bit tough to accept criticism of this beast.

[Metus regem]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

Ok fair enough that it was not common. I can appreciate that. You are however also telling me that this kind of mod would be extremely easy to pull off. So I guess it shouldn't be considered to much of an aberration. The disdain by some for the Warhammer is a good example that has been brought up. My unit fields waves of them in faction and most if not all own at least a couple of 6D's and R's. I guess when you have something that is so good and works so well you get a place for it in your heart. So it can be a bit tough to accept criticism of this beast.

When it comes to the Warhammer, it was designed around twin PPC's, if one wants a more ballistic focused version, best look at it's 5t heavier sibling the Hammerhands. they both share a similar look, while the Hammerhands uses AC/10's in place of the PPC's... How ever for MWO, I don't berate anyone for running meta builds, if that is what floats their boat, fine. I don't because I like the extra challenge of Super Stock builds.

As far as Butterbee being an 'easy' modification, I'm not sure if I would call it that, as it is only a one off, not a regular varaint that you are likely to encounter during TT campaigns... likely variants to encounter during a 3025 era game:

CPLT-A1
CPLT-C1
CPLT-C4
CPLT-K2

[Bishop Steiner]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

The disdain by some for the Warhammer is a good example that has been brought up. My unit fields waves of them in faction and most if not all own at least a couple of 6D's and R's. I guess when you have something that is so good and works so well you get a place for it in your heart. So it can be a bit tough to accept criticism of this beast.

And that is one, reasonable approach to take. Now reverse your position. Try being someone who came up on the IP thru TT, and the Warhammer has long been your favorite Beast....in part because of the beautiful, massive PPCs in the arms. Now you are constantly being harped on by GitGud Gamers for wanting to be able to run your Warhammer the way you've always seen it, played it, had it represented in the novels?

The disconnect here seems to be there are 3 types of players, Those who care about Lore, those who simply care about game play, and the majority, the masses in the middle that likely wish both of the other parties would just shut up and play.

For me, my issue is..there are plenty of generic IPs to treat in a generic manner. As I said before, me personally, I want my Rebels with X WIngs, my Empire with AT ATs. Because that is the lore of the IP. Give me a generic gunbag scifi shooter...then I am all for whatever works. Why? Because there is no lore to be invested in.

That said... I have consistently rode the middle ground on this, and for instance, when it comes to the Warhammer? My complaint is there is no mechanic in place to encourage people to run PPCs in their arms... while still allowing people to mod them if they choose.

Again... I am, and have always been, for Customization. But I prefer LIMITS to said customization, which can be enforced through various means. Even when having discussions with Russ over quirks, over the years, I would say things like yes, the HBK-4G should be free to run whatever ballistic it wants in that RT mount. But since it was engineered and designed from the factory to run an AC20, it should run that AC20 BETTER. Hence, if for instance said mech was going to have Weapon Quirks, it should be for the AC20 it was designed to carry. One can still modify it how they want though.

It's pretty laughable how the default internet mentallity seems to be, if you don't 100% agree with someone's PoV, you are against them, a troll, etc. *SMH*