Jump to content

Ams Does Not Require A Hard Point


18 replies to this topic

#1 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 17 August 2017 - 02:35 PM

AMS only requires a hard point in MWO and it really should not. MWO exploits it as a nerf. BattleTech has no hard points and all other MechWarrior games considered it as a piece of universal equipment and had no AMS hardpoint.

At first I thought it was just an easy nerf, but now omnimechs (which are the only mechs to not get an AMS) are required to use all eight omnipods to get most quirks. How is that a fair balance?

Make AMS require no hardpoint, or make it universal on every mech, and you can call the 8 matching omnipod quirks fair. Otherwise it seems ill considered. Nerfing with no idea where the game is headed.

Edited by Lightfoot, 17 August 2017 - 03:48 PM.


#2 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 18 August 2017 - 12:54 AM

i disagree with the ams thing but i do agree that omni's should have no hardpoints but battlmechs do actually have hardpoints.


And i fully agree the whole omnipod thing is a joke and a slap to the face of players who bought this stuff espcially the 8/8 quirks the 8/8 quirks make omimechs useless, the whole point of an omni is flexibility. we could have had one omni for the 4 we have that could have filled all the roles of the other 3. it's a wonder why clan battlemechs are used, because Omni's have been nerfed so much that their flexibilty is now a liability.

Timberwolf A right torso?

Edited by KursedVixen, 18 August 2017 - 06:21 AM.


#3 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 18 August 2017 - 09:43 AM

Yes the Timberwolf A left torso should have the nerf-quirk changed to an 8 omnipod nerf-quirk. Absurd, I know. It all is.

In BattleTech all mechs can equip an AMS in the torsos, arms, and head, just not in the legs. That's canon. For MWO, PGI should just allow all mechs to equip at least one AMS in any of the 6 allowed mech sections. Maybe the hardpoints could be for extra AMS.

The way it is now, most Clan mechs do not have an AMS. Doesn't that strike everyone as wrong? Well it's not from BattleTech, that much is certain.

I think PGI will be the only dev team in history to not allow all mechs to equip an AMS, which is an essential option for any mech. Can we please have a level field of play?

Edited by Lightfoot, 18 August 2017 - 09:52 AM.


#4 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:57 AM

No, PGi is bigoted towards IS that trend has continued to hold since they first introduced clans.

So as much as I'd enjoy that, it's never gonna happen.

Edited by KursedVixen, 18 August 2017 - 12:06 PM.


#5 Jep Jorgensson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 553 posts
  • LocationWest Chicago, IL

Posted 19 August 2017 - 09:21 AM

View PostLightfoot, on 17 August 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:

AMS only requires a hard point in MWO and it really should not. MWO exploits it as a nerf. BattleTech has no hard points and all other MechWarrior games considered it as a piece of universal equipment and had no AMS hardpoint.

At first I thought it was just an easy nerf, but now omnimechs (which are the only mechs to not get an AMS) are required to use all eight omnipods to get most quirks. How is that a fair balance?

Make AMS require no hardpoint, or make it universal on every mech, and you can call the 8 matching omnipod quirks fair. Otherwise it seems ill considered. Nerfing with no idea where the game is headed.

The whole 8-piece Omnipod Quirk BS is just one more way for PGI to $hit on the Clans. This is also related as to why there are still no plans to introduce IS Omnimechs to the game. If they did that, PGI would then be forced to redo Omnimechs altogether since IS Omnimechs with the same restrictions as ours would make them unplayable for the most part. That is why Clan Battlemechs are rated so highly overall over Omnimechs despite the fact that Omnimechs are supposed to be the better mechs.

#6 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 19 August 2017 - 10:02 AM

Yes, this was my complaint when they told us that Omnimechs would have fixed equipment, which grants more flexibility in Mechlab to standard Battlemechs, the opposite of BattleTech lore.

Battletech has no Mechlab so customization had to be done in the factory or take months of redesigning to do, unless you had an omnimech which allows fast omnipod changes. However, there is no difference to the time it takes to make major changes to an omnimech like engines and equipment. Battlemech or Omni it's the same redesign process. Except in MWO Battlemechs are allowed to use Mechlab for redesigning and Omnimechs are not. While I can understand the locked engines, there is no excuse for the fixed equipment. It's a mech destroying nerf. See Thor, Battletech's number 2 most popular mech probably, virtually absent from MWO.

But absolutely no excuse to not allow every mech to equip an AMS. It's a flagrant BattleTech rules violation.

#7 Jep Jorgensson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 553 posts
  • LocationWest Chicago, IL

Posted 19 August 2017 - 02:26 PM

View PostLightfoot, on 19 August 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

Yes, this was my complaint when they told us that Omnimechs would have fixed equipment, which grants more flexibility in Mechlab to standard Battlemechs, the opposite of BattleTech lore.

Battletech has no Mechlab so customization had to be done in the factory or take months of redesigning to do, unless you had an omnimech which allows fast omnipod changes. However, there is no difference to the time it takes to make major changes to an omnimech like engines and equipment. Battlemech or Omni it's the same redesign process. Except in MWO Battlemechs are allowed to use Mechlab for redesigning and Omnimechs are not. While I can understand the locked engines, there is no excuse for the fixed equipment. It's a mech destroying nerf. See Thor, Battletech's number 2 most popular mech probably, virtually absent from MWO.

But absolutely no excuse to not allow every mech to equip an AMS. It's a flagrant BattleTech rules violation.

Do not forget the fixed internal and armor slots. That is another method PGI uses to nerf the Clans even further and also why the IS'ers will not be getting any Omnimechs anytime soon. If they made it so the IS Omnis would have floating slots like Battlemechs but kept them locked for Clan Omnimechs, then that would be a clear and undeniable case of discrimination and PGI will not risk that headache. So the easiest solution for them is to simply not introduce any IS Omnis in the first place which is exactly what they are doing.

Also, PGI seems to want the game to be a FPS with mechs sprinkled with a dash of "Lore" to make it look nice. They clearly have no intention of adhering to the Lore that we know and love. This is a mistake. Battletech is not supposed to be a FPS. Now, the preview for MW5 looks good, it looks really good. It actually makes you feel like you are piloting a real 'Mech into real battle. That, frankly, is a glimpse into what this game should look like. That said, like everything else that comes from PGI, they have a bad habit of promising modestly and still failing miserably. See for yourself.


Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 20 August 2017 - 07:44 AM.


#8 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 19 August 2017 - 05:22 PM

View PostJep Jorgensson, on 19 August 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

Do not forget the fixed internal and armor slots. That is another method PGI uses to nerf the Clans even further and also why the IS'ers will not be getting any Omnimechs anytime soon. If they made it so the IS Omnis would have floating slots like Battlemechs but kept them locked for Clan Omnimechs, then that would be a clear and undeniable case of discrimination and PGI will not risk that headache. So the easiest solution for them is to simply not introduce any IS Omnis in the first place which is exactly what they are doing.

Also, PGI seems to want the game to be a FPS with mechs sprinkled with a dash of "Lore" to make it look nice. They clearly have no intention of adhering to the Lore that we know and love. This is a mistake. Battletech is not supposed to be a FPS. Now, the preview for MW5 looks good, it looks really good. It actually make you feel like you are piloting a real 'Mech into real battle. That, frankly, is a glimpse into what this game should look like. That said, like everything else that comes from PGI, they have a bad habit of promising modestly and still failing miserably. See for yourself.


Because PGI is Inner Sphere biased they hate the clans and love the Is that is why you will NEVER see any good clan stuff added.

Edited by KursedVixen, 20 August 2017 - 11:22 AM.


#9 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God of Death
  • The God of Death
  • 7,518 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 09:50 PM

Yep, it's why clans have lost every Tukkiyad event

#10 ImperialKnight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,733 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 01:41 AM

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech

I have no problem with Omnimechs being balanced using fixed equipment according to lore. Clan XLs are still superior to IS XL/LFEs and Clan weaponry are still lighter and take up less slots.

A game needs to be balanced. If you guys just want to play with OP mechs, just use Clan Battlemechs. Now those are broken.

#11 Jep Jorgensson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 553 posts
  • LocationWest Chicago, IL

Posted 20 August 2017 - 07:49 AM

View PostKursedVixen, on 19 August 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:

Because PGI is biased towardS Clans they hate the clans and love the Is that is why you will NEVER see any good clan stuff added.

???

You are not making any sense and please fix your grammar. It is irritating.


View PostNlGHTBlRD, on 19 August 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Yep, it's why clans have lost every Tukkiyad event

No, it was the merc units that happened to be contracted with the Clans at the time that tipped the scales in those battles (especially the last one). I was there. I remember. Now, if it had been just the loyalists fighting, then that would have been a sight to see.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 20 August 2017 - 07:51 AM.


#12 KursedVixen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationLook at my Arctic Wolf. Closer... Closer...

Posted 20 August 2017 - 11:22 AM

View PostJep Jorgensson, on 20 August 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

???

You are not making any sense and please fix your grammar. It is irritating.



No, it was the merc units that happened to be contracted with the Clans at the time that tipped the scales in those battles (especially the last one). I was there. I remember. Now, if it had been just the loyalists fighting, then that would have been a sight to see.
My grammer is fine, your reading is what needs fixed. Go back to Steiner space you stuck up Lyran!

Edited by KursedVixen, 20 August 2017 - 11:23 AM.


#13 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 21 August 2017 - 09:58 AM

I don't think PGI is biased. They just have too many concurrent nerfs running. Fixed equipment okay, but why no AMS too? There are no standard Battlemechs with no AMS in MWO. But AMS is a standard option for all omnimechs and battlemechs. It requires no hardpoint. PGI is making the rules so they set up Mechlab as they wish, but pretty obvious PGI is using AMS as a balancing wedge and it creates a non-level field of play.

Any mech can equip an AMS, that's Canon BattleTech rules so it should not be used as a nerf.

#14 Jep Jorgensson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 553 posts
  • LocationWest Chicago, IL

Posted 21 August 2017 - 03:00 PM

View PostKursedVixen, on 20 August 2017 - 11:22 AM, said:

My grammer is fine, your reading is what needs fixed. Go back to Steiner space you stuck up Lyran!

Ah, I see you have corrected some of the mistakes you made in your initial post, good improvement.


View PostLightfoot, on 21 August 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

I don't think PGI is biased. They just have too many concurrent nerfs running. Fixed equipment okay, but why no AMS too? There are no standard Battlemechs with no AMS in MWO. But AMS is a standard option for all omnimechs and battlemechs. It requires no hardpoint. PGI is making the rules so they set up Mechlab as they wish, but pretty obvious PGI is using AMS as a balancing wedge and it creates a non-level field of play.

Any mech can equip an AMS, that's Canon BattleTech rules so it should not be used as a nerf.

You are free to think that, but many of us have observed different.

Edited by Jep Jorgensson, 21 August 2017 - 03:01 PM.


#15 Insanity09

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • 551 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 02:16 PM

I am so very tired of seeing clan fans claim the PGI favors the IS. I'm also tired, although I notice it less, of seeing IS fans claim PGI favors the clans.

Here is the situation. Games with factions need those factions to be balanced. That is a simple fact, because without approximate parity, you end up with pretty much one playable faction.

When clans were introduced, they had a vast tech advantage. Smaller, lighter, longer range weapons. Smaller, lighter equipment, particularly heat sinks (smaller). cXL.
All according to lore, great, but it makes for a lousy game. It was, purportedly, quite ugly for the IS for a while.

Since that time, PGI has been making efforts to bring more balance in, with limited success. Quirk, nerf, etc., etc. It is an on-going process, because the factions are not identical, nor should they be.

That does not mean PGI loves IS more than the clans (or vice versa). That means the PGI is trying to balance their game., with it still based on TT/lore.

Favoritism to either side is not productive for PGI. Get it?

Now, to the topic at hand.
I like the idea of every mech (clan and IS) always being able to mount at least one AMS. On the IS side I think that's already pretty much the case. It would be a boost for the clans, particularly folks running omnis who've chosen modules without an AMS point.
I also like the idea that mechs with an AMS hardpoint could put a 2nd AMS where that hardpoint is.

One change that would obviously be necessary is that any existing single AMS point would need to be removed, possibly adding another weapon hardpoint (of whatever kind the mech has the most of?). (in some ways this makes good sense, because iirc, in TT AMS could be used to target enemy mechs, not gonna happen in MWO, but precedence for the hardpoint replacement)
On mechs that can currently mount multiple AMS, the 2nd (and 3rd?) AMS points would still be locked to wherever. So, the 1st you put wherever you want (except legs), after that you put additional AMS where the hardpoint is.

Sounds workable.

#16 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 28 August 2017 - 08:07 PM

Fix this please. No reason why every mech shouldn't have an AMS option. Just like they get extra heatsinks.

#17 Exilyth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,100 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 29 August 2017 - 01:18 PM

Omnis can mix pods to get any loadout they want. One variant has ams? All variants can equip ams.

Also, clams have a better distribution of ECM in e.g. the Hellbringer, which also can be used on all variants and helps against missile locks.

#18 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,610 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:21 AM

View PostExilyth, on 29 August 2017 - 01:18 PM, said:

Omnis can mix pods to get any loadout they want. One variant has ams? All variants can equip ams.

Also, clams have a better distribution of ECM in e.g. the Hellbringer, which also can be used on all variants and helps against missile locks.


The AMS is placed in the 'nerf-mech' pod usually. The omnipod that strips the mech of the most firepower. So it is being used as a nerf without question. That is wrong. PGI has plenty of other ways to nerf omnimechs and they do with great regularity.

It's partly the issue of too many cascading nerfs in MWO's Clan tech, and partly the fact that in BattleTech all mechs can equip an AMS. In fact all mechs can equip an AMS in any allowed section, one per section, concurrently. So MWO should allow any mech or omnimech of any configuration to equip one AMS. They should not hold it out as a nerf because it is standard equipment for all mechs.

Withholding AMS is not Balance, it is Imbalance.

#19 Jep Jorgensson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 553 posts
  • LocationWest Chicago, IL

Posted 02 September 2017 - 07:20 AM

View PostLightfoot, on 31 August 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

Withholding AMS is not Balance, it is Imbalance.

You mean discrimination. This is also part of the reason why the IS'ers will not be getting any Omnimechs of their own anytime soon (I went into greater detail in my earlier posts).





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users