31 replies to this topic

[Jun Watarase]

Andi Nagasia, on 02 September 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

not really, our weapons are close to balance, yes their are some that still need love,
but if a game never released content unless all other content was perfect then no game would ever release new content,

personally i feel MMLs could add a new flavor to mwo,
and much like ATMs offer something new to a persons play style,

"Our weapons are close to balance"

Which is why most units drop with near 100% laser vomit on non-hot maps in their first 3 waves right? Unless they want to push with UACs? Even the mechs themselves are almost always the same unless someone wants to be funny and bring an AC20 cicada or something for the lols.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 02 September 2017 - 10:10 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Jun Watarase, on 02 September 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

"Our weapons are close to balance"

Which is why most units drop with near 100% laser vomit on non-hot maps in their first 3 waves right? Unless they want to push with UACs? Even the mechs themselves are almost always the same unless someone wants to be funny and bring an AC20 cicada or something for the lols.

im sorry im not seeing that,
playing Quick play Solo or Group im seeing all kinds of builds,
ATM boats, LRM boats, Gauss ERLL, PPC, Duel RAC, SRM Brawlers, ERSL brawlers, Laser Vomit,

im seeing the same for Comp, had a match last night vs Answer, they had all sorts of builds,
(mostly Light Packing with Assassins(SRMs) but mixed heavy assault builds)

FW is kinda in limbo, unlike other matches their are times where you are very likely to run out of ammo,
even if your boating ammo, Lasers dont have this problem, which is why i feel you see lasers more in FW,
but i dont think ive ever seen a every only 12man in FW, even on cold maps,

not that it doesnt happen im sure if has, but personally i havent see this in my experiences,

[FLG 01]

AlphaEtOmega, on 24 August 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

3068 is a very nice year, in this year clans got their Hyper-Assault Gauss Rifle.
http://www.sarna.net..._Gauss_Rifle_20
I have no problems of IS getting 3068 tech if clans get 3068 tech too.

I hope you are aware that the HAG is the only Clan weapon from 3068. The IS on the other hands gets Light Autocannons, Plasma Rifles, MMLs, and MG arrays in 3068. (And the CFE).

[evilauthor]

FLG 01, on 02 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

I hope you are aware that the HAG is the only Clan weapon from 3068. The IS on the other hands gets Light Autocannons, Plasma Rifles, MMLs, and MG arrays in 3068. (And the CFE).

Hmm... I'd like to see the Plasma Rifle in MWO. A 6 ton, ammo using PPC (sorta) that inflicts both damage AND heat on a target. Almost perfect for those laser boating Clanners.

Although I'm sure MWO would throw all kinds of nerfs on it... probably starting with a low projectile speed, maybe burst shooting like the heavier UACs...

[Battlemaster56]

FLG 01, on 02 September 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

I hope you are aware that the HAG is the only Clan weapon from 3068. The IS on the other hands gets Light Autocannons, Plasma Rifles, MMLs, and MG arrays in 3068. (And the CFE).

We could push the Time to 3069 there a few more Clan weapons available.

http://www.sarna.net...i/Plasma_Cannon
http://www.sarna.net...otary_AC/2(Both cRAC 2/5 were created in 3069)
http://www.sarna.net...ulse_Laser(3057 still can be brought in)
http://www.sarna.net...nel_Gauss_Rifle

but the only thing holding these weapons back this is Jihad era tech.

[Brain Cancer]

Andi Nagasia, on 02 September 2017 - 10:05 AM, said:

well actually that 16 is from TT i believe,
even MW3 had a 16 weapon limit, so its not a MWO thing but i Lore/TT thing i believe,

No such rule exists in TT, actually. It's just that after a certain point, a chassis generally runs out of room or tonnage to efficiently mount them.

Jun Watarase, on 02 September 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

"Our weapons are close to balance"

Which is why most units drop with near 100% laser vomit on non-hot maps in their first 3 waves right? Unless they want to push with UACs? Even the mechs themselves are almost always the same unless someone wants to be funny and bring an AC20 cicada or something for the lols.

People drop that way in FW because nothing less than energy layouts can keep going until the ride is shot to pieces. Anything with ammo is pretty much guaranteed to run down before your 48 opponents are toast.

[FLG 01]

Battlemaster56, on 02 September 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...i/Plasma_Cannon
http://www.sarna.net...otary_AC/2(Both cRAC 2/5 were created in 3069)
http://www.sarna.net...ulse_Laser(3057 still can be brought in)
http://www.sarna.net...nel_Gauss_Rifle

Sarna is fan project and unfortunately not very consistent or accurate when it comes to the introduction dates. Often prototype dates get mixed up with production dates, and sometimes even R&D dates are mistaken for production dates (which is the case with the C-RAC; no they were not created in 3069, their R&D started in 3069).
Therefore you have to rely on books and canon sources; the most up-to-date source on that is the UTA table in the IO (pp. 35-63). Let's see:

Spoiler

The red marking on the Chemical Laser is because I used that image before when a fanboy wanted it and, based on Sarna, claimed it was FCCW-era.

Sure, Plasma Cannon and AP Gauss are from 3069, so is the heavy FF and some other tech. But I don't want an arms race with arbitrarily chosen dates to include some weapon but exclude another.
That's why it's good that PGI limits the game to FCCW-era tech (with a few exceptions like the L-AMS). And as I have pointed out in another thread, neither IS nor Clan miss a lot from that era.

That's also my position when it comes to the MML and all the other post-FCCW weapons. The only exception I'd be willing to make is the Blazer for it was fully mature in the SW era already (even if large scale production only started in the Jihad for reasons of continuity and lore).

Edited by FLG 01, 02 September 2017 - 12:36 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

FLG 01, on 02 September 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

That's also my position when it comes to the MML and all the other post-FCCW weapons. The only exception I'd be willing to make is the Blazer for it was fully mature in the SW era already (even if large scale production only started in the Jihad for reasons of continuity and lore).

personally i feel no tech should be restricted as long as it fills certain Criteria,
1) it has to be reletivly close to the current date(lets say with in 5 years)
2) it has to add something to MWO(MG-Arrays, Light-ACs, MMLs, HAGs, Ect,)
3) it has to fit in MWO in a balanced state(some weapons in TT would be broken in MWO)

that said i wouldnt see MMLs being a problem if added,
they would give IS an Option much like ATMs are an Option for Clans,

[FLG 01]

In my experience, 'negotiated' cut-off dates for tech ("let's say 5 years") create an unhealthy atmosphere in the community because some people will feel disadvantaged and ask for another date ("let's say 10 years*) and more weapons, starting a vicious cycle. I know this from some games** and I am not keen on seeing it in MWO.

Sticking to an era, besides being lore-friendly (and we need every single one of few lore-friendly elements in this game!), means the date is imposed by an external authority and everyone has to deal with it. Also, let's be honest, the wish for new weapons often is just new toy syndrome.
I am not immune to it myself as some of the Jihad stuff is really cool, but the BattleTech fan in me wants to get the FCCW-era right before we move to the Jihad. And if we move to the Jihad, we shouldn't do it half-assed by cherry picking some weapons we like. We should do it all the way.


* give me my Blazer!
** an example is Wargame Red Dragon. I used the negiotiable timeframe to successfully push for some actually not so appropriate designs; and some people said I abused it. Unfortunately that was part of the game and I had to play along or my faction would have been disadvantaged. I don't want this kind of virtual arms race in MWO.

[Andi Nagasia]

@FLG 01
agreed, which is why the 3rd item on my bullet point is,
(3) it has to fit in MWO in a balanced state(some weapons in TT would be broken in MWO)
this would act as a stop gap to ensure balance, as designs that are too strong would not be used,

[Vancer2]

SURE go ahead, buff IS even more, its not like Clan has enough crap against it as it is. WHERE ARE THE CLAN ROTARYS AT?!?!?!?!

[FLG 01]

Andi Nagasia, on 02 September 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

agreed, which is why the 3rd item on my bullet point is,
(3) it has to fit in MWO in a balanced state(some weapons in TT would be broken in MWO)
this would act as a stop gap to ensure balance, as designs that are too strong would not be used,

I can see where you come from and I understand the merits of your approach, even though I have a different approach. Yet we have to keep in mind that coming to a consensus on balance is very difficult, which is one reason I prefer sticking to an era: at least the discussion on what weapons should be in is unnecessary.

I mean, it's not like I needed Vancer2's post to make that point, but it is certainly illustrative.

Vancer2, on 02 September 2017 - 04:43 PM, said:

SURE go ahead, buff IS even more, its not like Clan has enough crap against it as it is. WHERE ARE THE CLAN ROTARYS AT?!?!?!?!

If you had read this thread you'd know the answer.