22 replies to this topic

[Carbon Guardian]

Widowmaker1981, on 11 May 2023 - 06:29 AM, said:

1) Its Canon. As in Canonical. 'Cannon' is a different word which refers to a gunpowder weapon... sorry to be a pedantic *** - this is a pet hate. if you have only heard a word or phrase (as opposed to reading it), its often a good idea to check if you heard it correctly before using it yourself - another one is 'Per se' (Latin for 'by itself') being incorrectly heard as 'Per say', which makes no sense.

2) People who want a pure tabletop translation either haven't thought it through or want (what i would consider) to be an utterly terrible game with absolutely no room for player skill (not to be confused with tactics). Being able to aim at specific body parts with intention breaks Battletech, and as soon as you change that part, everything is up for discussion. Im very glad PGI dont cater to that market.

3) If you want a PC game which is a reasonably faithful recreation of TT rules, Harebrained Schemes made one. Its even a turn based game where you control multiple mechs, so the ruleset actually makes sense in the environment!

1. MWO legends is only canon based on the licensing agreement. I've seen chinese knock offs that more resemble their original canon counter parts that this game. Pls tell me what is canon about ghost heat?

2. I'm not advocating for a pure TT translation. I'm advocating for a few simple tweaks that will make this game better and make it easier to balance. Example take match maker players from same unit either playing solo or as a group in pugs should if mm can't find another group have a tonnage disadvantage due to the fact that they play together. One simple thing like that will balance the whole experience for everyone, and make MWO designers lives easier.

3. I already play that one. I'm not asking for a turn based simulator.

Now getting to your quickplay point, guess what that's the same problem in TT almost like it was directly translated from TT!
This is what I'm getting at they will copy exactly certain aspects from table top and totally screw with other aspects (melee combat for example). When they brought the clans in they had to make choices it honestly looks like they made all the wrong choices. Clans are suppose to be OP compare to pre clan IS tech. That's fine but how can we play our favourite mechs in quickplay without handicapping our team? Many choices 1. Tonnage (wrong choice hence PGI picks it), 2. Battle value, 3. Zellbrigen (clan honor most difficult to implement), 4. new maps that have more cover to from long range lrms and not a lot of long range snipe lines, 5. pump out IS mechs that can compete with clan mechs faster than what 7 yrs later, 6. Don't make clan tech OP (you shouldn't have a problem with clan nerfs to match IS since you don't want to play a "reasonably faithful recreation") So many choices mistakes made and yet PGI is willing to go down with the ship instead of sail.

[Widowmaker1981]

Carbon Guardian, on 15 May 2023 - 06:11 PM, said:

1. MWO legends is only canon based on the licensing agreement. I've seen chinese knock offs that more resemble their original canon counter parts that this game. Pls tell me what is canon about ghost heat?

Erm, i was just being picky about canon vs cannon. As long as we have the battle tech aesthetic i dont care about the specific rules being 'canon' - i actually think that PGI should have messed with equipment tonnages and slots since some of the limitations in MWO make the slot usage of some weapons overkill (like no crit splitting making HGRs a pretty bad pick in most cases, and its just utterly stupid for the LBX20 to take 11 slots when the MWO version is flatly worse than the much easier to mount AC20)

Carbon Guardian, on 15 May 2023 - 06:11 PM, said:

2. I'm not advocating for a pure TT translation. I'm advocating for a few simple tweaks that will make this game better and make it easier to balance. Example take match maker players from same unit either playing solo or as a group in pugs should if mm can't find another group have a tonnage disadvantage due to the fact that they play together. One simple thing like that will balance the whole experience for everyone, and make MWO designers lives easier.

So why did you start going on about heat systems from tabletop? As i said in my initial reply to this thread, rather than referring 'how it is in TT', simply state the problem that exists in your opinion, your suggested fix and how you think it would improve the situation.

Carbon Guardian, on 15 May 2023 - 06:11 PM, said:

Now getting to your quickplay point, guess what that's the same problem in TT almost like it was directly translated from TT!
This is what I'm getting at they will copy exactly certain aspects from table top and totally screw with other aspects (melee combat for example). When they brought the clans in they had to make choices it honestly looks like they made all the wrong choices. Clans are suppose to be OP compare to pre clan IS tech. That's fine but how can we play our favourite mechs in quickplay without handicapping our team? Many choices 1. Tonnage (wrong choice hence PGI picks it), 2. Battle value, 3. Zellbrigen (clan honor most difficult to implement), 4. new maps that have more cover to from long range lrms and not a lot of long range snipe lines, 5. pump out IS mechs that can compete with clan mechs faster than what 7 yrs later, 6. Don't make clan tech OP (you shouldn't have a problem with clan nerfs to match IS since you don't want to play a "reasonably faithful recreation") So many choices mistakes made and yet PGI is willing to go down with the ship instead of sail.

1) No, every mech needs to be ~balanced with every other, because you only get one mech per match. Balancing teams by tonnage should actually not be needed if mech balance is done well enough (its not, and i dont really think anyone could manage to properly balance 1000+ variants, but there we go)

2) No, see above. If some mechs are explicitly better than others, why would i ever use the low BV ones?

3) Dont see how you can implement this at all. its a roleplay thing at best.

4) Lol. LRMs are a non factor unless you are a potato, and most maps have ample cover for getting into range of snipers, or blocking their line of sight until you're ready to close. I literally dont use any 'sniper' range weapons on any of my most successful QP builds.

5) Plenty of competitive IS mechs, and tbh its not really to do with the specific chassis anyway, its to do with the 2 slot DHS, 7 slot ES/FF and non deathtrap XLs. As above, I personally think PGI should have thrown a lot of TT slot/tonnage costs out the window and (for this issue) given IS 2 slot DHS etc but, since they wanted to preserve lore builds, balancing this on a mech to mech basis is HARD and i think the current clan / IS balance is pretty decent, considering.

6) See above, yes i think thats what they should have done.

[Carbon Guardian]

Widowmaker1981, on 17 May 2023 - 09:58 AM, said:

Erm, i was just being picky about canon vs cannon. As long as we have the battle tech aesthetic i dont care about the specific rules being 'canon' - i actually think that PGI should have messed with equipment tonnages and slots since some of the limitations in MWO make the slot usage of some weapons overkill (like no crit splitting making HGRs a pretty bad pick in most cases, and its just utterly stupid for the LBX20 to take 11 slots when the MWO version is flatly worse than the much easier to mount AC20)



So why did you start going on about heat systems from tabletop? As i said in my initial reply to this thread, rather than referring 'how it is in TT', simply state the problem that exists in your opinion, your suggested fix and how you think it would improve the situation.



1) No, every mech needs to be ~balanced with every other, because you only get one mech per match. Balancing teams by tonnage should actually not be needed if mech balance is done well enough (its not, and i dont really think anyone could manage to properly balance 1000+ variants, but there we go)

2) No, see above. If some mechs are explicitly better than others, why would i ever use the low BV ones?

3) Dont see how you can implement this at all. its a roleplay thing at best.

4) Lol. LRMs are a non factor unless you are a potato, and most maps have ample cover for getting into range of snipers, or blocking their line of sight until you're ready to close. I literally dont use any 'sniper' range weapons on any of my most successful QP builds.

5) Plenty of competitive IS mechs, and tbh its not really to do with the specific chassis anyway, its to do with the 2 slot DHS, 7 slot ES/FF and non deathtrap XLs. As above, I personally think PGI should have thrown a lot of TT slot/tonnage costs out the window and (for this issue) given IS 2 slot DHS etc but, since they wanted to preserve lore builds, balancing this on a mech to mech basis is HARD and i think the current clan / IS balance is pretty decent, considering.

6) See above, yes i think thats what they should have done.

I started going on about TT because it is far closer to balancing this game than the current failed attempt. It doesn't help the conversation when you make up what I am saying vs what I am saying. I never once said a "pure or 1 to 1" translation from TT. Don't feel like you made a valid point by having your own discussion excluding what I'm saying!

How can you balance every mech against every mech yet have different tonnages? If you actually took the time to read PGI's vision of battletech. You would quickly realize it is based on role warfare. So how do we have a role warfare based game without roles? You are very adamant on making sure each mech is balanced against every other mech, then want slot and tonnage of weapons to be flexible. I think you should go play Gundam lots of flexibility for those robots. This is battletech apply melee damage and some mechs go from scrap heap to powerful. Especially since you don't need any long range weapons (see your point 4)