325 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

The problem however, is you're so absolutely rooted in a mindset of customization, that you can't see the roles, because they don't function like that in any other game, which has been a MAJOR failing of Mechwarrior for over 20 years.

Honestly, you're putting your own spin on what I said. Go back and LOOK at what I wrote - I want Lore roles for mechs. Heck, I play "super-stock" builds whenever practical in MWO. What I want is MINOR, practical customization. Replace a PPC on my Awesome with an ERPPC. Maybe add some more ammo to my Atlas at the cost of something else. Shuffle some armor around on my mech because some dope of an engineer really thought I need to fully armor my weaponless arms, but forgot to put any armor on my legs. That type of thing.

I don't want 4 UAC5 Maulers. I don't want "Boom Jagers." I don't want "Splat-a-pults." But I don't want a game where I can't change anything and make my mech unique. I don't want a game where I'm constantly being hamstrung or frustrated by stupid, obvious mech deficiencies that could so easily be fixed, even in a world as run-down and short on tech and resources at the BT universe. Make me fight for it - sure! Heck, I wanted salvage in MWO to BE salvage - mech parts - not just more cbills. But don't tell me "Sorry, oldradagast. I know we have fusion engines and faster than light travel, but removing a heatsink from your Atlas to add 1 more ton of AC20 ammo is simply impossible. Oh, and you're a horrible person who doesn't understand Battletech Lore for asking."

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 03:28 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

still waiting for the first person to point out where the article actually says "the will be no customization" instead of people reading into a vague statement about not having the options like MWO and instantly jumping to the nuclear option.

Like i said before, if a person is going to put a .50-caliber bullet to blow your head off, does such person really need to tell you verbatim that "i'm going to kill you" to understand that he will kill you?

I'm not pushing it as a gospel, rather I am making inferences based on what available data is at hand. Sure you say that's not enough data, to us it's enough at least to make an initial inference prior to possible changes, like if they decided to have MWO level customization -- then good. But until then, please don't discount our ability to analyze things and make predictions, you're disregarding exactly what made human beings the dominant animal on the planet.

People also have their own preferences, others may be satisfied with limited -- little customization, others expect higher. You can't force them to like what you like, and if they decide to close wallets because of this, it's their own prerogative. If they have different opinions to you, don't crucify them, cause they are not crucifying you for your different opinion.

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

Whatever. I forgot I don't know how to use Urbies. My bad.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Oh look pushing half truths and such around as gospel still then asking why I'm salty. The irony.

Being angry about big things like people attacking you is okay. Being angry about little things such as simply having different opinions, or feeling personally attacked because of disagreement is not, it's childish and petty.

The thing with discussions is that it's not one-sided, you don't just go to a discussion and preach what you think is right and people will just agree with you, you have to honor the same transaction to the rest of the people discussing, because if you're not gonna be open-minded to what they say, then they wouldn't be open-minded to what you say. You say "half truths", and that's why we deliberate so we uncover the truth, by reasoning, following logical conclusions. You wanna prove to the world that it's just a half-truth or not even true? Then join the discussion, and reason otherwise.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Has anyone even bothered to PM or tweet Russ for clarification? Anyone?

https://twitter.com/...317998900854785

[Bishop Steiner]

I think a lot of folks on all sides are stuck in a rut of circular arguments further augmented by only half reading (at best) a lot of the statements they are replying to, or simply approaching it from the "I'm right and you are wrong" mentality.

In this whole mess, the only one absolute truth is that the article does not say ANYWHERE that there will be no customization in MW5.

Not one time.

Beyond that? It's people putting their thoughts in the copious blanks left in the information we have, nothing more. And all any of it is doing is fanning the usual dumpster fire of butthurt that is the Forums of MWO, not remotely actually discussing a dang thing.

[Lord0fHats]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

Again, most mechs, only suck when paired against optimized "meta" mechs.

A CN9-A, is actually a valid threat, even against a WHM-6D, that autocannon 10 isn't just for show.

Heck, a stock HBK-4G, put against most heavy's, is still a threat due to it's movement profile, AND it's AC20, 2mlas and 1slas.

Then you realize not ever mech comes stock with some super heavy weapon taking up most of their weapon weight and many have just damn weird load outs. Take a Thunderbolt 5S; LRM 15, Large Laser, 3 MLs, and 2 Machine Guns. That build is all over the place. Medium range direct fire. Short range direct fire. Long range indirect fire.

Quote

You're continuiously thinking of a mechs viability in a system that allows full customization, not a mechs validity against other mechs locked down in customization.

You're forgetting that a system without customization has the exact problems of producing lots of crappy mechs as one with.

Mechs that by default come with oversized guns aren't bad in stock because all other things aside a big AC20 is an AC20 and it hurts, but lots of, if not most, mechs just come with confused or downright bizarre stock builds. A lot of the mechs have imo shoddy lore excuses for their configurations, but at least those same excuses are likely to exist in MW5; infantry, tanks, and other such threats not mechs that justify the presence of weapons with widely different roles, but even then you're going to end up with some mechs being better than others. Compare the Griffin 3M to the Shadowhawk 2D. They both had lulthatsbad builds for MWO, but the 3M stock happens to be a straight upgrade over the 2D in the same weight and role.

And oh damn heaven forbid they ever get around to Clan Mechs some day. One of the units I was in put people in Stock Hellbringers to teach them heat management because their armor was so low that the inevitable switch to just firing the machine guns wouldn't drag the fight out forever

Edited by Lord0fHats, 17 September 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

The6thMessenger, on 17 September 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

Like i said before, if a person is going to put a .50-caliber bullet to blow your head off, does such person really need to tell you verbatim that "i'm going to kill you" to understand that he will kill you?

I'm not pushing it as a gospel, rather I am making inferences based on what available data is at hand. Sure you say that's not enough data, to us it's enough at least to make an initial inference prior to possible changes, like if they decided to have MWO level customization -- then good. But until then, please don't discount our ability to analyze things and make predictions, you're disregarding exactly what made human beings the dominant animal on the planet.

People also have their own preferences, others may be satisfied with limited -- little customization, others expect higher. You can't force them to like what you like, and if they decide to close wallets because of this, it's their own prerogative. If they have different opinions to you, don't crucify them, cause they are not crucifying you for your different opinion.




Being angry about big things like people attacking you is okay. Being angry about little things such as simply having different opinions, or feeling personally attacked because of disagreement is not, it's childish and petty.

The thing with discussions is that it's not one-sided, you don't just go to a discussion and preach what you think is right and people will just agree with you, you have to honor the same transaction to the rest of the people discussing, because if you're not gonna be open-minded to what they say, then they wouldn't be open-minded to what you say. You say "half truths", and that's why we deliberate so we uncover the truth, by reasoning, following logical conclusions. You wanna prove to the world that it's just a half-truth or not even true? Then join the discussion, and reason otherwise.



https://twitter.com/...317998900854785

Bully on you. Now until and unless we get an answer maybe the course of wisdom is to stop "inferring" things that are not there (because we can all infer whatever we want) and stop pouring effing gasoline on a fire that we don't even know exists?

Since off that exact same of limited facts I was able to "infer" an equally likely case for a limited customization system ala HBS. Funny how that works.

Maybe?

Also, to use your very BAD illustration... the problem is... we know there is a gun, and it's .50 cal.

Who it's pointed at, if it even works, etc? No clue. It's a pretty huge jump from there to assume a gun exists it must be there to kill me. And THAT is exactly what you are doing with the extremely limited details we have.

Causing a crapstorm of panic over an imagined worse case scenario.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 September 2017 - 03:52 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

Now until and unless we get an answer maybe the course of wisdom is to stop "inferring" things that are not there (because we can all infer whatever we want) and stop pouring effing gasoline on a fire that we don't even know exists?

Maybe?

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

In this whole mess, the only one absolute truth is that the article does not say ANYWHERE that there will be no customization in MW5.

People disagree about you on that part, we find meaning about it. What you say isn't the word of god anyways.

Sure people can "infer whatever we want", but we do discuss things and could eventually lead to the correct assumption, that's the point of discussions. Joining the discussion with a "Prove to me" mindset isn't helping, so is being salty.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

I think a lot of folks on all sides are stuck in a rut of circular arguments further augmented by only half reading (at best) a lot of the statements they are replying to, or simply approaching it from the "I'm right and you are wrong" mentality.

If you wanna fervently believe what you believe that's fine, but seeing that "it's not there", what's the point in conversing with people when they are discussing on the happenstance that it's true? All it does is make you salty and projective anyways, and waste your time and effort.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

Also, to use your very BAD illustration... the problem is... we know there is a gun, and it's .50 cal.

Who it's pointed at, if it even works, etc? No clue. It's a pretty huge jump from there to assume a gun exists it must be there to kill me. And THAT is exactly what you are doing with the extremely limited details we have.

Causing a crapstorm of panic over an imagined worse case scenario.

What we're analyzing is the action. I didn't just say that there's just a .50 caliber gun, I specified "blow your head off", really your head clean off your body -- an action behind it. That's what a .50 BMG can do when it passes through your head. We're pretty sure that it's pointed at you, and it works, if it could send a bullet to your head and enough to make your head explode too.

You don't just think that these messages you read came from a rock right? Of course it must've come from a computer with internet connection and browser to type, it must've come from a person with account with said website.

You think limited details, not really.

[mod]

Redacted

[/mod]

Edited by poopenshire, 18 September 2017 - 05:24 AM.

[Nightbird]

As long as it is 50-60$, whatever, I'll get it

[Lord0fHats]

The6thMessenger, on 17 September 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

People disagree about you on that part, we find meaning about it. What you say isn't the word of god anyways.

Sure people can "infer whatever we want", but we do discuss things and could eventually lead to the correct assumption, that's the point of discussions. Joining the discussion with a "Prove to me" mindset isn't helping, so is being salty.

If you wanna fervently believe what you believe that's fine, but seeing that "it's not there", what's the point in conversing with people when they are discussing on the happenstance that it's true? All it does is make you salty anyways, and waste your time and effort.

I actually feel pretty secure in inferences from what has been said so far, because if we've learned anything over the years its that PGI's reality always falls short of their intentions, and they're trying to push this thing out in 2018. They have a lot of the assets already, which is great, but I won't be shocked if "limited to no customization" really becomes "no" because they hit the deadline and didn't get to the limited part.

[Bishop Steiner]

The6thMessenger, on 17 September 2017 - 03:56 PM, said:

People disagree about you on that part, we find meaning about it. What you say isn't the word of god anyways.

Sure people can "infer whatever we want", but we do discuss things and could eventually lead to the correct assumption, that's the point of discussions. Joining the discussion with a "Prove to me" mindset isn't helping, so is being salty.



If you wanna fervently believe what you believe that's fine, but seeing that "it's not there", what's the point in conversing with people when they are discussing on the happenstance that it's true? All it does is make you salty and projective anyways, and waste your time and effort.

'

What we're analyzing is the action. I didn't just say that there's just a .50 caliber gun, I specified "blow your head off", really your head clean off your body -- an action behind it. That's what a .50 BMG can do when it passes through your head.

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

I actually feel pretty secure in inferences from what has been said so far, because if we've learned anything over the years its that PGI's reality always falls short of their intentions, and they're trying to push this thing out in 2018. They have a lot of the assets already, which is great, but I won't be shocked if "limited to no customization" really becomes "no" because they hit the deadline and didn't get to the limited part.

and that is exactly what I mean. You read into it what you want.

I haven't read ANYTHING into it yet. Why? Because we don't have enough info. But if y'all want to act the fools over it, enjoy.

Edited by poopenshire, 18 September 2017 - 05:25 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

Then you realize not ever mech comes stock with some super heavy weapon taking up most of their weapon weight and many have just damn weird load outs. Take a Thunderbolt 5S; LRM 15, Large Laser, 3 MLs, and 2 Machine Guns. That build is all over the place. Medium range direct fire. Short range direct fire. Long range indirect fire.

And you're forgetting something as well, it's called "synergy". A mech like the TDR-5S has a lot of weaponry for different uses, yes, so you're supposed to group up mechs with similar setups to synergize their usefulness. As well as have other mechs that can support the first group of mechs if they run into an unfavorable situation.

For example, I'll post up a custom mercenary unit that I had help building from the wonderful people over on the main Battletech forums to show you an example of what I'm saying.


Recon Lance
PXH-1D Phoenix Hawk
Weapons: 1 Large Laser, 2 Medium Lasers

FS9-H Firestarter
Weapons: 2 Medium Lasers, 2 Machine Guns, 4 Flamers

STG-3G Stinger
Weapons: 2 Medium Lasers

WSP-1D Wasp
Weapons: 1 Medium Laser, 2 Small Lasers, 1 Flamer

Command Lance
SHD-2H Shadow Hawk
Weapons: 1 AC5, 1 Medium Laser, 1 LRM5, 1 SRM2

WVR-6M Wolverine
Weapons: 1 Large Laser, 2 Medium Lasers, 1 SRM6

GRF-1S Griffin
Weapons: 1 Large Laser, 2 Medium Lasers, 1 LRM5

DV-6M Dervish
Weapons: 2 Medium Lasers, 2 LRM10s, 2 SRM2s

Heavy Lance
VTR-9B Victor
Weapons: 1 AC20, 2 Medium Lasers, 1 SRM4

GHR-5H Grasshopper
Weapons: 1 Large Laser, 4 Medium Lasers, 1 LRM5

TDR-5SE Thunderbolt
Weapons: 1 Large Laser, 3 Medium Lasers, 1 LRM10

ENF-4R Enforcer
Weapons: 1 AC10, 1 Large Laser, 1 Small Laser

Fire Lance
DRG-1N Dragon
Weapons: 1 AC5, 2 Medium Lasers, 1 LRM10

CPLT-C1 Catapult
Weapons: 4 Medium Lasers, 2 LRM15s

CRD-3D Crusader
Weapons: 2 LRM15s, 2 SRM4s, 2 Medium Lasers

ARC-2R Archer
Weapons: 2 LRM20s, 4 Medium Lasers

Let's take a look at all the weapons here shall we?

6 Large Lasers
35 Medium Lasers
3 Small Lasers
5 Flamers

2 AC5s
1 AC10
1 AC20
2 Machine Guns

3 LRM5s
4 LRM10s
4 LRM15s
2 LRM20s

3 SRM2s
3 SRM4s
1 SRM6

On the surface that seems like a pretty hodge-podge spread of weapons doesn't it?

But it all comes down to how it's used.

For example, that's 155 LRMs that can rain down on a target which the Scout Lance, you know, scouted. Even you have to admit, that will ruin your day pretty god damn quick.

So yes, on it's own something like the TDR-5S might seem too generalized to be really useful, but when grouped up with other mechs that have similar abilities/loadouts, you can run roughshod over your opponent if you maximize your mechs advantages.

Yes, even in stock form mechs can have some pretty serious advantages if you know how to organize and play to the mechs base loadout.

Edited by Alan Davion, 17 September 2017 - 04:09 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 04:05 PM, said:

I haven't read ANYTHING into it yet. Why? Because we don't have enough info. But if y'all want to act the fools over it, enjoy.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're not the judge, what you say isn't 100% true, people don't flock to please you. You think we don't have enough info, we say we do because we can fill the gaps, connect the dots, and logically conclude.

"Fill the gaps", as in like i said. You don't think i wrote this message on a rock do you? Surely if i'm able to respond into message-boards, i must've had a computer with internet connection, and account to said site. If i could type concise words you can understand, it's unreasonable to think that i don't have a brain just because you don't see it. Of course i must have a brain else i wouldn't be able to exhibit cognitive functions. That "fill in the gaps".

Good Bye. Hopefully you're a lot more cheerful and a lot less salty when you get back.

[Lances107]

As others have said. The layout of keys, controls, hardpoints, hit points, crits, and everything else needs to be the same as MWO. If they do this, then MW5 can not only be a fun single player, but also can be a training tool for MWO. If PGI wants to use their resources correctly. They will combine the two games, MWO being the multiplayer aspect, and MW5 being the single player aspect. Obviously you will need to purchase the MW5 single player aspect/campaign. The worse thing they could do for MWO, is soup the hell out of the MW5 mechs, and make it easy as all get out. The result will be people will play MW5, and say we should try MWO, only to find its on a whole other level of difficult, and uses a completely different set up. The next words out of there mouth will be screw it, and go back to easy land of MW5. This combination as I just suggested, and others have before me, is the only way MWO does not die. Although the x factor still applies, I have no clue about any future plans, the devs may have for MWO that could shift the balance as it were.

[Lord0fHats]

Alan Davion, on 17 September 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

And you're forgetting something as well, it's called "synergy".

That's not what synergy is. Synergy is when all the parts work together for the same goal, but that mech is mixing at least three different combat types. It's easy to notice. I listed them. In fact most stock builds carry the very opposite of synergy with the underlying lore excuse that most are designed to meet variable battlefield conditions while a limited few are specialized for specific roles. The Shadowhawk 2D is a workhorse mech and carries a bizarre mix of weapons, while the Jagermech-A is a specialized anti-air platform and actually does have synergy. And lore wise that makes sense given that most battlefields are not overflowing with mechs, and a mech is far more likely to run into non-mechs as opponents.

Unfortunately a giant robot game where all you do is run around shooting down jets, machinegunning poor little infantry and popping tanks is gonna be boring really fast.

Quote

A mech like the TDR-5S has a lot of weaponry for different uses, yes, so you're supposed to group up mechs with similar setups to synergize their usefulness.

That's just a long way of saying jack of all trades master of none, which in almost any balance state for almost any game is worse off than specializing.

Quote

For example, I'll post up a custom mercenary unit that I had help building from the wonderful people over on the main Battletech forums to show you an example of what I'm saying.

And that all makes sense in a strategy or tactical game like Battletech, but makes very little in an FPS where you only command a single machine and at best bring some AI buddies along to soak up bullets.

Quote

And who appointed you the judge?

We could say the same thing about you. I can draw a conclusion based on limited information and a wealth of previous knowledge. Could be wrong, could be right. No certainty until release really, but at this point the inference is about as informed as anything.

Edited by Lord0fHats, 17 September 2017 - 04:35 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

That's not what synergy is. Synergy is when all the parts work together for the same goal, but that mech is mixing at least three different combat types. It's easy to notice. I listed them. In fact most stock builds carry the very opposite of synergy with the underlying lore excuse that most are designed to meet variable battlefield conditions while a limited few are specialized for specific roles. The Shadowhawk 2D is a workhorse mech and carries a bizarre mix of weapons, while the Jagermech-A is a specialized anti-air platform and actually does have synergy.



That's just a long way of saying jack of all trades master of none, which in almost any balance state for almost any game is worse off than specializing.



And that all makes sense in a strategy or tactical game like Battletech, but makes very little in an FPS where you only command a single machine and at best bring some AI buddies along to soak up bullets.



We could say the same thing about you. I can draw a conclusion based on limited information and a wealth of previous knowledge. Could be wrong, could be right. No certainty until release really, but at this point the inference is about as informed as anything.

yet we aren't the ones lighting up the forums with clickbait firestarter topics. Hence.. we (well, at least me) ain't the one's "judging". In fact, I'm the guy who is specifically reserving judgement until we do know more.. hopefully at MechCon, though I would love for more info sooner.

I am however calling bullcrap on folks like 6th who are making proclamations that their interpretation is so.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 September 2017 - 04:28 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

And who appointed you the judge?

And who said that i'm the judge? I never did, never proclaimed to be. I never said "prove to me", no. I just said that it's our conclusion, that's why people talk to this thread on the premise that there's "no customization". I just tell my reasoning into the ether and expect a response.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

As for being a lot more "cheerful and less salty" you do realize the utter irony of that statement since YOU are the one causing a crapstorm over an assumption that has YOU butthurt.

Not really no, i've been level headed this entire time. Not even used "lol" or "swears" in our talks in this thread cause if i joined you, there would be two unreasonably salty person in this thread, as if one isn't already making a mess.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

Time to look in that mirror son. Because the gloom and salt? It's ALL you.

Considering what you've been writing compared to mine, all the emotions, forgive my disbelief.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:

Thank you though for reminding me why I put you on ignore. Your sanctimonious hypocritical bullcrap gets a little tough to swallow. Enjoy festering in your own imagined bile.

You're welcome.

[mod]

Redacted

[/mod]

Edited by poopenshire, 18 September 2017 - 05:27 AM.

[Lord0fHats]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 04:27 PM, said:

yet we aren't the ones lighting up the forums with clickbait firestarter topics.

Clickbait firestarter topics. Yeah. You're not making judgements. Not at all.

For a guy who is so reserved in judgement you sure seem to have a lot to say about the topic, but hey go ahead and call other people hypocrites for sharing an opinion on a discussion board. I mean it's not like it's here for talking about things. That would be nonsense.

[Alan Davion]

Lord0fHats, on 17 September 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

That's not what synergy is. Synergy is when all the parts work together for the same goal, but that mech is mixing at least three different combat types. It's easy to notice. I listed them. In fact most stock builds carry the very opposite of synergy with the underlying lore excuse that most are designed to meet variable battlefield conditions while a limited few are specialized for specific roles. The Shadowhawk 2D is a workhorse mech and carries a bizarre mix of weapons, while the Jagermech-A is a specialized anti-air platform and actually does have synergy.

That's exactly what synergy is. Maybe not the exact form you were thinking of, but it is still synergy.

syn·er·gy
ˈsinərjē/
noun
noun: synergy; plural noun: synergies; noun: synergism; plural noun: synergisms
the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

The TDR-5S, yes, while it has 3 different types of weaponry, it is still only one mech. You have to group that mech up with others that have the same weaponry, or weaponry that fills a different role, and suddenly you've got a much more powerful force that can do things that the singular mech could not do on its own.

Synergy.

Just like that JM6-A. Sure it's a dedicated AA mech, but what happens when that JM6-A gets caught out by something that's not an Aerospace fighter? Say a lance of LRM fire support mechs that are getting target acquisition data on that JM6-A thanks to a group of infantry hidden near the JM6-A.

All that AA firepower is going to mean absolutely balls cause the JM6-A will not be able to fight back against those LRM fire support mechs. The JM6-A is going to need a group of other mechs or vehicles to go and force those LRM mechs out of cover so the JM6-A doesn't get its teeth kicked in.

The JM6-A needs to synergize with other mechs of different roles to be able to do what it does best.

Edited by Alan Davion, 17 September 2017 - 04:47 PM.

[Lord0fHats]

[mod]

Redacted

[/mod]

Quote

We know exactly three facts.
1) We won't have the same level of customization we have in MWO
2) Russ wants to Emphasize Roles
3) And not invalidate variants, etc.

And from the actual examples I infer that point 1 is disappointing because I like the customization in MWO, point 2 is fine but actually makes little sense combined with point one because most stock mechs have no role/are all over the place in load out until I customize them to have one, and that point 3 is a false dream because in any game more complex than rock-paper-scissors certain choices become "invalid" from a game play stand point.

Quote

Everything else is bullcrap you are supplying to add meaning to it. And yeah. I will say so.

Sounds like a judgement to me. A rather mean spirited one too because you're assigning to people a lot of ill will for have such a simple take it or leave it disagreement.

Edited by poopenshire, 18 September 2017 - 05:32 AM.

[JC Daxion]

Trissila, on 17 September 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

You people need to make up your minds. You complain about OP builds here in MWO and want PGI to implement all kinds of awkward, kludgy mechanics (ghost heat, power draw, etc.) to force people to build poorly or closer to lore... then they propose making a game where ONLY lore builds exist, and you complain about that too.

lol..

I know right? I read that article, and thought, wow that sounds pretty neat! Especially if as he says, keep your eyes out for that X mech.. Maybe it will make replays, or even playing more a lot more interesting. Sounds great if i can't see it all one time through for the mech side of things.

I'm hardly a big lore guy, but this sounds really cool, even if i do like the old customization. But if it makes me say, i'd raelly love to have X mech, and it might be gone if i don't get it right now, i might have some big decisions to make about what to get rid of.

Most of the old games were just collections, sure you sold stuff for money, but hardly ever had to make a hard decision on what to keep or what to sell. This could add a whole other level of fun.



Besides making games is so easy from what i've read on this forum.. it won't be hard for some guy to make up a quick mod, to make modding mechs work.. Should't take more than a week maybe a month tops right?

Edited by JC Daxion, 17 September 2017 - 04:56 PM.

[Lord0fHats]

Alan Davion, on 17 September 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

That's exactly what synergy is. Maybe not the exact form you were thinking of, but it is still synergy.

True. in the sense of build a mech company there is syenrgy in the way he describes which is why I said it works in games like Battletech. Unless Russ is adding a strong lance command component to the game (which admittedly would be pretty cool) it's outside the bounds of what the player can actually do and has traditionally been able to do in Mechwarrior games. Even in previous games that had lance commands the AI was too shallow to be much use beyond bullet sponge.

Quote

it is still only one mech.

Indeed which is why its kind of silly from a lance composition stand point. Only one mech mixing three different fighting ranges can't maximize its weight. It makes even less sense from a composition perspective where you can bring more than one mech. I can a) spread my long range four over four mechs, meaning they can all fire at long range but only one weapon at a time and be unable to use their other closer range weapons, or put all my long range fire on one mech and leave the other ranges to the other three to cover for that mech.

This isn't really about synergy. It's about what I'd call "breadth and depth." Option A gives a lot of breadth but little depth with all its waste. B gives the same breadth, but maximizes depth by optimizing how weapons are deployed across carriers. This is a basic component not just in Mechwarrior, but in a lot of games. A great example I know well is Warhammer 40k, where you really want to cover key bases as cheaply as possible to minimize loss and maximize redundancy.

[mod]

Redacted

[/mod]

Edited by poopenshire, 18 September 2017 - 05:33 AM.