73 replies to this topic

[KoalaBrownie]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 03 August 2018 - 06:29 AM, said:

As far as being useless. A lot people play certain eras of battletech. Knowing what is available and when is actually fairly important. It's a needed resource. Even if dry and boring.

I think it's just faffing about for the sake of selling more books. All a person needs is TROs which list when a unit becomes available.

FLG 01, on 03 August 2018 - 06:22 AM, said:

I am sure they did not go by the TROs because that is inefficient (it means searching dozens of Mechs per book manually and creating your own lists, when there are canonic lists available already), and it is also a flawed idea.

You would not find any L-PPC in a pre-Jihad TRO, for example, simply because the new IS PPCs were introduced in 3067 and they were not installed on the new Mechs. Some found their way to new variants sooner but those are not covered by TROs.

I think you're over thinking it. Of course they're looking at TROs (or perhaps sarna) because they're thinking, this looks cool, this is popular, this isn't, etcetera. As for weapons. They probably just looked at the overall lists and thought what they could bring in. You're right that the PPCs were probably not brought in via TRO, they were probably seen on a list and then they wanted to integrate them and the intro date worked in their favour.

I would be surprised if anyone at PGI is scrutinizing over lists like those found in IO where it mentions everything including the kitchen sink and RPG tech ratings and nonsense like that. None of which is useful for actually playing the game.

[Hal Greaves]

I don't understand how RAC's are a problem. I've never once encountered a situation against a RAC equipped mech that's ever been a problem for me. The -one- time I got creamed it was very well deserved because I derp'd and ended up in a massively bad position.. Literally anything would have killed me.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

KoalaBrownie, on 03 August 2018 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think it's just faffing about for the sake of selling more books. All a person needs is TROs which list when a unit becomes available.



I think you're over thinking it. Of course they're looking at TROs (or perhaps sarna) because they're thinking, this looks cool, this is popular, this isn't, etcetera. As for weapons. They probably just looked at the overall lists and thought what they could bring in. You're right that the PPCs were probably not brought in via TRO, they were probably seen on a list and then they wanted to integrate them and the intro date worked in their favour.

I would be surprised if anyone at PGI is scrutinizing over lists like those found in IO where it mentions everything including the kitchen sink and RPG tech ratings and nonsense like that. None of which is useful for actually playing the game.

For building custom units that are timeline appropriate it's a lot easier to check a table than it is to search a dozen TROs and try and piece everything together.

[KoalaBrownie]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 03 August 2018 - 09:21 AM, said:

For building custom units that are timeline appropriate it's a lot easier to check a table than it is to search a dozen TROs and try and piece everything together.

I understand your point of view but you're over-stating the problem. If you want a timeline appropriate custom unit, you don't need to search a dozen TROs you need to look at the TRO from the era that corresponds to your unit.

Also frankly I think having introduction by year over a timeline that spans some eight centuries is just pointless. The level of detail should suit the scale, and going by year doesn't suit the majority of eras. The only eras it does suit is the 3050-3075 era, not coincidentally the era that the game covered over the years.

Is it useful to know that the AC/5 was developed in 2240 and the AC/10 in 2443? How many custom campaigns are going to be run in 2300 where a guy wants to design a custom unit and discovers he can't use the AC/10 yet? As I said, it's just faffing about. In fact I would say all it does to serve is to undermine any sense of realism for the timeline.

Also catalyst's entire organizational method is flawed from the outset- tech availability should be centred around conflicts not around any dates on the calender. By example it doesn't matter that the HMS Rodney, a British Battleship, was launched in 1925, what matters is that it served in WW2. That's why I've always preferred the TROs because they generally correspond to important events. And if players are going to represent an a-historical conflict in their game then why are they worried about historical minutia like tech coming out one or two years earlier or later.

Anyway this is getting off topic of MWO

[evilauthor]

I imagine that Clan HAGs in MWO would be implemented as burst firing like Ultra ACs. And in order to keep them from being OP, PGI would likely make sure to give them absurdly long bursts.

[tjandcats]

HAG = ballistic clan MRM

[Grus]

Jay Leon Hart, on 18 March 2017 - 01:49 AM, said:

Goodness forbid the IS get something the Clans don't. I mean, that would just be downright unfair!

For the same reason we cant get any survivability quirks worth a damn right?...

[Ssamout]

Goddamn necromancers, get a crypt.

[Battlemaster56]

Someone keep taking my necronomicon, it getting real annoying not having that for my wizard college.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Grus, on 23 February 2019 - 05:18 AM, said:

For the same reason we cant get any survivability quirks worth a damn right?...

2 year old post, Grus?

#LetItGo

Also, look at the Orion IIC some time, it may shock you...

[Battlemaster56]

TBF the only ON1IIC worth bothering is the A all the others is either weaker versions of the A(ON1-IIC and C) and the other is why bother when other options do it better ( B and Skoll and the Skoll is just a clan version of the Protector with a extra hp).

The ON1 IIC need some distinction between them and atleast fill some niches or something.

[Valdarion Silarius]

I'm all for HAGs, but I'd like to see clans get switchable LBX ammo and other pre-3060 weapon systems (Silver bullet Gauss rifle for the IS) before we jump into the later weapon systems.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Catten Hart, on 18 March 2017 - 12:22 AM, said:

Okay, so... The reason I think we didn't get Hyper Assault Gauss Rifles is how much of a balancing headache they'll be. I mean, you have so many weapons getting added that'll undoubtedly need some adjustments when they first come in (MRMs, Rotary Autocannons).

I think that PGI just didn't want the Clans to get yet another weapon that could be called incredibly overpowered, lest they be accused of pandering to the Clan Players even further. And honestly, I understand it, even if diehard Clanners are butthurt over the result. Now, I would've loved them, and honestly, if they were implemented it wouldn't be so bad. I mean, they are apparently inaccurate enough at range to warrant cluster hit penalties at range in tabletop. But that's still a possible 20-30 point buzzsaw (HAGR 40s aren't released until 3069, IIRC) at closer ranges.

But with how Clanners do in CW, and with how so many people complain about how Clanners are OP, I imagine that PGI felt they (The Clan Mechs) didn't need another reason to be complained about more, another reason to be even better.

That, and the nightmare that would be a quad HAGR-20 Kodiak KDK-3. That'd be downright "FML, quitting game" territory at times, that.

Actually PGI has over-nerfed the hell out of the clans in order to pander to the whiners so they sure as hell didn't want to introduce a weapons system that the whiners would whine even more about. Don't get me wrong, I love the hell out of my over-tuned IS mechs such as my 70-ton Cataphract with 118 CT armor which coincidentally has as much CT armor as my 100-ton Clan Kodiak but it really makes me a sad panda when trying to play my crippled Clan mechs, with their bad agility profiles, excessively hot weapons and fragile nature (100 ton Clan mechs with the same armor value as 70 IS mechs...what!?).

[InfinityBall]

"Horse scientists" made me laugh.