DaMuncha, on 05 April 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:
I never played the board game and I only started with Mechwarrior 3, so I dont give a flying **** about the lore of Battletech, I loved Mechwarrior 3 because it was dirty, had a good story, and I could build any mech the way I wanted to play. But Mechwarrior 4 completely ruined all that, everything looked shiney and new, sparkly and bright, and the story was crap, I got so sick of having to deal with the political drama, and the mech cusomisation killed it for me because I couldnt play the way I wanted to. So with MWO they've done the same thing.
After playing Mechwarrior 3 then playing Mechwarrior 4 I felt Microsoft was trying to tell me how to play the game, and force me to play the game they wanted me to play it. I hate that crap. Let me Have Mechwarrior 3's Mechlab and let me play the game the way I want. Like I said, I dont care about the lore, I care about having fun and limiting my mech customisation and taking out my favorite mechs ruins it for me.
Then you're playing the wrong game. There's plenty of titles out there for you to combo yourself silly, but once you have played them a while you realize something. All those games lead to one very specific result.
In Armored Core FA, slow mechs weren't viable at all. tank and heavy legs were useless. Worse than useless. The extra armor they provided didn't hold a candle to actually being a lightweight speed mech. The game rushed away from design versatility and all mechs eventually looked almost exactly the same.
In Chromehounds, you had full customization again. This was a little less animecha style like Armored core, and more like mechwarrior. The game ended up in different pigeon holes every rebalance. First came the go-kart build, which dominated everything. if you didn't use it, you lost. The last time I played CH, everyone used a very specific chicken-leg armor plate 6 howitzer build. Those who built the same thing were competitive, those who built anything else ended up at the bottom.
So ironically, increased options leads to a decreased variation, as the more options and the faster you can reach them, the quicker basic evolution reaches the "perfect" design.
Holding to the game's roots not only prevents this kind of thing from happening, it also makes fights MORE fun because you are guaranteed at least a semi-balanced fight.
BTW, politics is the entire reason people fight. All you have to do is ignore it if you don't like it.
Black Sunder, on 05 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:
Its a double standard man. The people here saying balance this and that are perfectly ok with a 4 ER PPC Warhawk and would even pilot one themselves.
I'm all for using only the critical and tonnage system because when I go to the battlefield with my team I want a challenge. I don't want to go "ok he's in an Awesome, that means he has X,Y,Z weapons and I need to do A,B,C with my team to kill him. No I want to see an Awesome and be scared to death he's using LRMs and a Gauss Rifle to shoot at me. I want the OMG factor. I want mystery.
If someone wants to load up on LLs and nothing else I'm ok with it. Just means we have to have a new approach. Scouts with ECM and BAP to find them, Narc to light them up for missiles or TAG for artillery.
Believe it or not, there are still people around that want to custom their mechs down to the last detail that WON"T make a boat. I'm one of them. I believe in balanced loadouts and attacking at all ranges. Frankly with the actual terrain we'll have it will make more sense to be balanced than only having long or medium range weapons.
I can wait for Omnimechs though.
Thats the advantage of clan mechs. The omni status of swapping things out and having a lot more weapons due to more weight/energy efficient weaponry. Thats not a double standard. it doesn't really matter about what we believe or what you will do, it matters what random munchkin123919 will do.
I predict, if they stay true to the game, clan mechs will be expensive as hell for models sold to the Inner Sphere from rogue nations, and otherwise must be obtained via salvage. Of course IS has their own versions of omnimechs in the future.
Kerzin, on 05 April 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:
The only thing I’m not likening all that much is the inability to freely swap around weapons, as long as you have the tonnage and critical slots worked out you should be able to change from laser/ballistic/missile system as you pleas.
This will promote a wider verity of game play with the same chassis and more choice is always better, it adds some uncertainty into the game when you don’t know if the long range missile Mech your looking at has been converted into a close range laser brawler.
it promotes blind countering and auto-win/losses. It promotes a rush to find the optimal design that's based around one ultraspecialization, such as laser boats, missile boats, guasszilla, etc. That decreases variety. Mechs will simply be different skins for doing the same thing. The one with the best free tonnage space will win out. There were mechs you didn't use in MW3.
Here's the list of mechs MW3 players didn't use if they were playing competitively in ranked league games, which I was in.
Cauldron Born.
Firefly.
Avatar.
Orion.
Black Hawk.
Supernova.
Vulture.
Champion.
All the rest were used in such capacities as: Laser boat, Missile Boat, AC boat. GR boat.
Is that more variety? The unlimited customization of MW3 allowed people to find the best of all the mechs, and all the others were subsequently useless. the unlimited customization allowed people to stick masses of a single weapon onto a mech, making it stronger than any mixed platform. Is that more variety? And the game's weapon stats themselves actually are a factor in this. They DO synergize better with themselves en masse than with a mixed platform. staying true to "variants only" or "extreme limited customizing for cost", makes the game viable.
Anyone using stock mechs on tabletop will tell you that vs someone who's min/maxed there is no competition. they roll over you like you don't exist. It's the nature of the weapons. The variants have a purpose of preserving game balance, and therefore FUN.
21
Not what I was refering to but thank you for this bit of wisdom. I hope others can take it to heart, I already knew this though.
I never stated that it was supposed to be for a "straight up" fight.
