53 replies to this topic

[Abrahms]

.

Edited by Abrahms, 24 May 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Abrahms, the devs have said that they are going for the TT values wherever possible, with tweaks for balance and in the transfer to a real time game versus turn based PnP. They are already doing testing and balancing around those values. I'm afraid that what you have suggested is a total revamp of the rules.
One thing that they have done is that lasers do damage over time. Weapon choices are limited by hardpoints for each chassis/variant with 1 weapon per hardpoint. Canon boats already exist.

[Abrahms]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 03 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Abrahms, the devs have said that they are going for the TT values wherever possible, with tweaks for balance and in the transfer to a real time game versus turn based PnP. They are already doing testing and balancing around those values. I'm afraid that what you have suggested is a total revamp of the rules.
One thing that they have done is that lasers do damage over time. Weapon choices are limited by hardpoints for each chassis/variant with 1 weapon per hardpoint. Canon boats already exist.

The values are easy to change, and I doubt turn based strategy conveys perfectly into real time.

The above values again, are NOT actual #s. They are illustrative of ratios, and how these rations keep weapons viable. It may mean making the small laser shoot slower... for more damage. But I really want them to avoid the damage models present in most MW games that really SUCK the diversity out of mech load outs.

There is always a best mech and a best load out. It lowers the quality of the game when the diversity is murdered.

[Trogusaur]

A good idea, but the biggest problem I see with this is that you are tweaking long established damage ratios with weapons. I agree, the SL should overpower the LL, but in very large numbers, and at the expense of enormous heat. However, the canon has already established damage values that many of us would like to see re-established as of this title. Given how TT was a turn based game, changing recycle rate to increase DPS is perfectly fine, but tweaking anything else is a no-no.

There are small things the devs have done already like re-implementing ammo explosions for overcooked ballistics and missles, and forcing lasers to fire like true "laser beams", instead of a packing single shot, Super LargeLasers. I trust that the developers will find a way to make sure no one weapon trumps all. If anything, I would worry about Gauss Rifles and Medium lasers asserting dominance.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 03 May 2012 - 11:58 AM.

[Abrahms]

Lord Trogus, on 03 May 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

A good idea, but the biggest problem I see with this is that you are tweaking long established damage ratios with weapons. I agree, the SL should overpower the LL, but in very large numbers, and at the expense of enormous heat. However, the canon has already established damage values that many of us would like to see re-established as of this title. Given how TT was a turn based game, changing recycle rate to increase DPS is perfectly fine, but tweaking anything else is a no-no.

There are small things the devs have done already like re-implementing ammo explosions for overcooked ballistics and missles, and forcing lasers to fire like true "laser beams", instead of a packing single shot, Super LargeLasers. I trust that the developers will find a way to make sure no one weapon trumps all. If anything, I would worry about Gauss Rifles and Medium lasers asserting dominance.

The ratios dont have to divert dramatically. Also, many mechwarrior games are always changing the values, so there isnt any real reason to stick to an old chart that one knows isnt balanced.

As you noticed, I kept a lot of the same concepts (how large laser = long, ACs do more damage up close with the AC20).

The only difference is, is that the reload times and slots/tonnage are slightly adjusted (AGAIN, I did not use REAL #s, speaking only of ratios) to make a point that small lasers should not be worthless, even at close range.

I love being able to use small lasers at close range and not feel like a retarded noob (because they suck). There is no point to put them on in MW4 because you can always find better weapons and then use the extra tons for armor. Small lasers are useless.

Edited by Abrahms, 03 May 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[JP Josh]

i want a sim pure and simple dust polen everything that is on a planets serface that can float in the air should be taken into account thus dust planets with high winds should be nightmarish for lazer boats. i say this cause the dust. ect get in the lazers path all while cannon's have to contend with gravity and wind. flamers now that's a tricky one i don't know enough lore to give a opinion on those but so far mine is on them granted it might be incorrect is if a small mech has enough heat sinks and ammo for it they should be able to spew forth a steady stream of fire and keep other mechs shut down till

A. another mech comes along and kills it.

B. it runs out of plasma/ nalpom ammo

also just for lols i want to do dmg to mech that i jump on top of.

[Evinthal]

Lord Trogus, on 03 May 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

There are small things the devs have done already like re-implementing ammo explosions for overcooked ballistics and missles, and forcing lasers to fire like true "laser beams", instead of a packing single shot, Super LargeLasers. I trust that the developers will find a way to make sure no one weapon trumps all. If anything, I would worry about Gauss Rifles and Medium lasers asserting dominance.

This is a problem why? Medium Lasers, in canon, have been the work horse weapon, and Gauss Rifles have been one of the most feared weapons for a number of reasons (not to mention they are one of the few weapon the IS will have that even closely matches the Clan version).

JP Josh, on 03 May 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

B. it runs out of plasma/ napalm ammo

Battlemech Flamers do not have ammunition. Vehicle grade flamers do.

Given that the game is running on Cryengine 3 I have little reason to think that environmental conditions will not play a part in battle. Learn to arc those shots boys and girls!

[Owl Cutter]

The disconnect between realtime and turn-based also means that there are a lot of things that are not yet defined, so there is some freedom there to tweak things.  There has been a lot of discussion here about a lot of such undefined values, including whether the developers are mapping TT damage values to damage per attack or damage per unit time.  Battletech also has optional "Solaris dueling rules" or something like that, which dramatically alter gameplay balance.  These can also be drawn on hopefully without upsetting the purists, picking and choosing from the different canon rulesets to achieve the best balance possible in usefulness for the variety of equipment.  I am really hoping this is the path being taken; under the optional rules, classic TT damage values become damage per attack, with autocannon and Machine Guns being able to attack several times in a turn, giving AC a very real advantage.  Additionally, the heat system is tweaked ingeniously so that even an overcooled laserboat will constanlty suffer the penalties that come with overheating- it still dissipates waste heat as fast as it generates it, but maintains a higher temperature and pays a more realistic price for it than in the TT game.  

I am not a fan of the hardpoint system as described in the recent update, but can understand it from a technical and visual perspective and hope that PGI is planning on implementing a more modular system later on to support changing number of visually apparent weapons ports on a chassis.  

Boating is easier because it's easier for most people to handle one type of weapon than to juggle several; my comfort zone seems to be two "primary" weapons (or batteries) and maybe a tertiary system to fill in some occasional gaps.  Others might prefer one single weapon, or a dazzling smörgåsbord of tools, but the general population weighs toward the former.  I don't have a problem with "boats" ruling the battlefield, as long as all the fun weapons that the developers bother making find at least some significant use one way or another.  

If the judgement is made that boating is undesirable, it seems to me that the most intuitively obvious way to combat the natural tendency to use nothing more complicated than the user is intuitively able to handle, is to add and/or boost synergies between dissimilar weapons systems to incentivise bothering with that complexity.  For an example that might mesh with Battletech and Mechwarrior, maybe autocannon could be devastatingly powerful due to rapid-fire as described above but harder than beams to hit with due to unguided ballistic nature, while LRMs aren't great at killing 'mechs by themselves but can cause them to stagger under their explosive blasts, setting them up for a follow-up attack.  

Edited by Owl Cutter, 03 May 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Abrahms]

Owl Cutter, on 03 May 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

The disconnect between realtime and turn-based also means that there are a lot of things that are not yet defined, so there is some freedom there to tweak things. There has been a lot of discussion here about a lot of such undefined values, including whether the developers are mapping TT damage values to damage per attack or damage per unit time. Battletech also has optional "Solaris dueling rules" or something like that, which dramatically alter gameplay balance. These can also be drawn on hopefully without upsetting the purists, picking and choosing from the different canon rulesets to achieve the best balance possible in usefulness for the variety of equipment. I am really hoping this is the path being taken; under the optional rules, classic TT damage values become damage per attack, with autocannon and Machine Guns being able to attack several times in a turn, giving AC a very real advantage. Additionally, the heat system is tweaked ingeniously so that even an overcooled laserboat will constanlty suffer the penalties that come with overheating- it still dissipates waste heat as fast as it generates it, but maintains a higher temperature and pays a more realistic price for it than in the TT game.

I am not a fan of the hardpoint system as described in the recent update, but can understand it from a technical and visual perspective and hope that PGI is planning on implementing a more modular system later on to support changing number of visually apparent weapons ports on a chassis.

Boating is easier because it's easier for most people to handle one type of weapon than to juggle several; my comfort zone seems to be two "primary" weapons (or batteries) and maybe a tertiary system to fill in some occasional gaps. Others might prefer one single weapon, or a dazzling smörgåsbord of tools, but the general population weighs toward the former. I don't have a problem with "boats" ruling the battlefield, as long as all the fun weapons that the developers bother making find at least some significant use one way or another.

If the judgement is made that boating is undesirable, it seems to me that the most intuitively obvious way to combat the natural tendency to use nothing more complicated than the user is intuitively able to handle, is to add and/or boost synergies between dissimilar weapons systems to incentivise bothering with that complexity. For an example that might mesh with Battletech and Mechwarrior, maybe autocannon could be devastatingly powerful due to rapid-fire as described above but harder than beams to hit with due to unguided ballistic nature, while LRMs aren't great at killing 'mechs by themselves but can cause them to stagger under their explosive blasts, setting them up for a follow-up attack.

Only issue here is the AC being too powerful short term, making lasers ideal for long term, but what good is that if they're dead?

I think that boating is bad simply because so far boating has been the best and only way to go in a lot of scenarios. Now THAT isnt true to battletech, as almost all default load outs are a mix of weapons.

The inherent, or gradually increasing weight cost, heat sinks is a good way to make lasers ideal but making them lose effectiveness as you put more on. One could also always go ballistic, but then they are missing out on the fact that, at least at the start, the laser weapons weigh less for the same dps. As you pile more on though, you need to add heatsinks, which have weight factored in a way that makes them then weigh MORE than ballsistic (so, overall, at first laser weapons weight less, and later they weigh more, because of the curve for heatsinks, or the inherent heatsink + all heavy heatsink method).

People could still boat, but better players would know that a mixture is more dps per ton, and if you are good at managing didnt weapon classes, will actually come out on top. This wont prevent a noob from going all lasers and at least being effective, however, they just wont be AS effective.

[Solis Obscuri]

Abrahms, have you read any of the devblogs and dev interviews? You might find the most recent one (Mechlab) illuminating.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

So do you want them to make small lasers have the same range as large lasers while you are at it? What you have proposed would result in removing all character from each weapon. Sure, Large Lasers hit much harder and at longer ranges than Medium Lasers, BUT at the cost of five times the weight and twice the critical space. Choosing weapons is all about the trade offs. If any particular weapon needs a look, it is Medium Lasers, because with their very small weight and critical space they can be easily boated, and seem to be the primary source of all the "alpha 'Mech" rage you see. It is not uncommon to see 'Mechs with a dozen or more medium lasers, a whole slew of heat sinks, and possessing the capability to do enormous damage at close range, without concern for ammunition explosions.

I think you misunderstand the term "balance." Having a balanced array of weapons does NOT mean that every weapon does the same damage rate ton for ton. Damage rate is only one factor of many. Would you consider it balanced if you could mount those 3 AC/2s, and do the same amount of damage as an AC/20 at more than twice the range? You just made the AC/20 very underpowered, and there would be no reason to use one. To determine the balance between weapons, you have to consider ALL of the following factors of the weapon simultaneously:

-Tonnage
-Critical space usage
-Ammunition requirements
   >Weight
   >Risk of ammunition explosion
-Damage output
   >Rate of damage
   >"Alpha" Damage (how much damage the weapon can do instantly in a single hit)
   >Concentration of damage done
-Heat of firing
-Optimal Range
-Speed of projectile
-Cost of weapon/ammunition (to a minor extent)

You CANNOT compare weapons to each other and only look at one or two factors. Because then of course some are going to appear very unbalanced if you just look at Damage/Weight or something like that. Also important to consider is that these values have been embraced by BattleTech lovers since the 80s. Sure, it may be necessary to tweak a few values when problems arise, but ONLY TWEAK. I would say anything past a 5% change of canon stats would be too large and result in a lot of fan outcry. One last thing: Each weapon already is powerful in its own right (except possibly the small laser and machine gun sometimes, but those are anti-personnel weapons). You decry that the AC/2 is near useless, but I would be more than happy to prove you wrong in that area as AC/2s, AC/5s, and their Ultra counterparts are some of my favorite weapons. With your emphasis on "DPS, " I am willing to bet you are prone to "Min-Maxing." If you are unable to keep pace with me (and I like to move at over 80kph these days), you are going to be sorely disappointed if you don't have weaponry matching my own in range, at which point your DPS is moot because you forgot to factor weapon range into the equation as well.

That all said, I will see you on the battlefield.
                            - Kilo Zulu-114

Edited by Alaric Wolf Kerensky, 03 May 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[Famous]

Here's the thing, the small laser should be basically useless at this point in the game. Like the Machine Gun, the Small Laser is an anti-infantry weapon and personally I'd like to see it stay that way. I don't think you've given anything close to a good reason that a Small Laser should be more effective at close range than a Large Laser.

If we see the inclusion of Combined Arms in this game then you will find the Small Laser to have a great purpose, but why should they buff an anti-infantry weapon to be anything but an anti-infantry weapon. It's like comparing a Machine Gun and an AC2, they're both low damage weapons, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to use the MG over the AC2 in Mech to Mech combat

[Black Sunder]

Hate to tell you but there are many boat mechs in stock configuration.

[Abrahms]

Famous, on 03 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Here's the thing, the small laser should be basically useless at this point in the game. Like the Machine Gun, the Small Laser is an anti-infantry weapon and personally I'd like to see it stay that way. I don't think you've given anything close to a good reason that a Small Laser should be more effective at close range than a Large Laser.

If we see the inclusion of Combined Arms in this game then you will find the Small Laser to have a great purpose, but why should they buff an anti-infantry weapon to be anything but an anti-infantry weapon. It's like comparing a Machine Gun and an AC2, they're both low damage weapons, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to use the MG over the AC2 in Mech to Mech combat

Well, you and the person above you dont sound like you even read the post, or have ever played mechwarrior in the past.... small lasers have always been a filler weapon on up to assault mechs, and one of the primaries on light. I wont bring up the default specs of all the mechs... but you can look them up.

I never said the small would be the same as a large... and I didnt say it was better. Ton for ton, the small I said should be better at close range, but if you notice, it still requires 4 slots to do what the large can do in 2. The medium laser is the one that can beat the large by slot, but it has a shorter range. Also, you can adjust cooldowns and heat by small %s to also add depth.

But, according to you two, the current system adds depth, and small lasers are for infantry... well, right now every mech is all of 3 weapons... Large laser, PPC, and gauss... that is NOT diversity. Large laser right now trumps small laser in short range in ALL categories.

My theory would make it so that ton for ton, a small laser was better up close, but would have a slightly faster fire rate for slightly less damage.

I guess part of the challenge is conveying a complicated concept, in writing, to people of average intelligence (and also ones with attention spans too short to read all of it?). As it stands, a small laser is useless. The tonnage is better spent on armor. It has no place in the game. The medium laser is almost just as useless. That is because the large laser does everything substantially better at very little extra cost.

Also, infantry is not on part with battlemechs and even small lasers are overkill. Mech-grade machine guns are even overkill. Mech-machine guns are still incredibly large, but its their rate of fire that distinguishes them from other ACs. An AC5 would fire around 15 RPM but a MG would fire over 1000... It is not necessary for it to do less damage... It can do a little less DPS, but when the RPM is that high, the damage is now substantially less to compensate.

Learn the concept of DPS - to do 10 dps you can fire twice for 5 damage in 10 seconds... once for 10 damage... or 10 times for 1 damage.

I have been a battlemech fan since MW2, and none of my original post diverted from any lore or stats beyond the fact that I suggested changing recycle times and upfront damage to a degree that can keep the weapons in their niche while not making half of them utterly useless.

Black Sunder, on 03 May 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Hate to tell you but there are many boat mechs in stock configuration.

Oh, like the missile boats? Most, and many of the iconic mechs, carry diverse load outs. Longbows and Catapults serve unique purposes, but that isnt the norm.

[Abrahms]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 03 May 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

You CANNOT compare weapons to each other and only look at one or two factors. Because then of course some are going to appear very unbalanced if you just look at Damage/Weight or something like that. Also important to consider is that these values have been embraced by BattleTech lovers since the 80s. Sure, it may be necessary to tweak a few values when problems arise, but ONLY TWEAK. I would say anything past a 5% change of canon stats would be too large and result in a lot of fan outcry. One last thing: Each weapon already is powerful in its own right (except possibly the small laser and machine gun sometimes, but those are anti-personnel weapons). You decry that the AC/2 is near useless, but I would be more than happy to prove you wrong in that area as AC/2s, AC/5s, and their Ultra counterparts are some of my favorite weapons. With your emphasis on "DPS, " I am willing to bet you are prone to "Min-Maxing." If you are unable to keep pace with me (and I like to move at over 80kph these days), you are going to be sorely disappointed if you don't have weaponry matching my own in range, at which point your DPS is moot because you forgot to factor weapon range into the equation as well.

That all said, I will see you on the battlefield.
- Kilo Zulu-114

looks like you didnt read my post

If you noted, the AC20 takes 3 slots. It has a slower recycle time than an ac5, and hits very hard. Meanwhile youre spraying a bunch of little bullets everywhere (under a lot of current stats). A lot of factors do matter, but as it stands, under my concept, the AC20 is still quite a bit better at close range. It keeps youre ac5 NOT worthless at close range, however.

Generally medium range load outs would be ideal, but long range would have the range advantage, and close would have the damage advantage. I know youre probably used to just large laser boating all day, and would hate to see your variant of choice no longer be 500% better than the next option, but other players (like myself) like to see default configurations actually worthwhile.

I played in the MW4 league days. Was all largeL, PPC, and gauss... 100% of the time... or an LBX20 or AC20 mech that would rush ppl and blow them away in 2 seconds then get sniped down by all the energy boats.

It really sapped a lot of the fun out of it. MPBT3025 was a game that seemed to somewhat avoid this (default load outs helped) but the weapon balance (trying to remember, its been years) was at least to a point where 1 type of weapon wasnt 1000% better than the next.

[Steel Talon]

There are mechs that are designed to be boated, mostly canon variants are boats already:
Fafnir, Madcat mkII, uziel, ... & 6-laser puma ofc.

[Abrahms]

steel talon, on 03 May 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

There are mechs that are designed to be boated, mostly canon variants are boats already:
Fafnir, Madcat mkII, uziel, ... & 6-laser puma ofc.

Being centered on two gauss isnt a "boat." Beyond the missile boats and a few laser ones like puma and novacat, most are mixed. Also note (didnt mention in my OP) that there isnt just one armor type either (such as reflective, which can really harm a laser boats chance and killing a target).

I also never said that boating wouldnt be an option, it was just that mixing it up wasnt a major downfall (and in good hands could be better). But, a large laser novacat is a sniper mech.... if I get up and close to it with equal tonnage of SRMs and Medium lasers, I should win.

The problem is the novacat laser boat >>>> all mentality that ends up happening. I never said boats DONT exist, but that mixing it up should be better. Heck, go play a first person shooter - the sniper rifle serves a niche. An LRM boat or laser boat has a niche... I shouldnt dominate all. Why cant people get that? As it stands the only thing that can beat it period is a mirror, or an AC20 mech in close range (note, just the AC20 mech, not the ac5 or ac10)

THAT is the problem.

[Famous]

Abrahms- I'm going to ignore your attacks on my person, my intelligence, and your inability to use the correct words in your posts and point out what is wrong with your whole concept.

1. The previous MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault games have no bearing on this game. Those games operated on a completely different concept from that the PGI gang is working with.

2. Not all weapons should have the same or similar DPS. A SL is not a short range version of a LL. It is a small laser. In canon it is an anti-infantry weapon, not something used as filler.

3. Boating will not be the same issue in this game as previous ones. If you want to make a boat you need to have a chassis that will support the appropriate hard points, ie something that was a boat from the very beginning. The Awesome is a PPC boat, the Awesome is in this game, you WILL see boats

4. "I WANT SMALL LASERS TO BE BETTER THAN LARGE AT SHORT RANGE!"- This seems to be your key point and there's nothing to discuss here. You can want this to be true all you want, but it's not going to be. A SL will do significantly less damage than a LL and have a much shorter range.

5. You don't appear to have made any effort to read through the Dev blogs or the numerous discussions on the subject. Even if four SL were equivalent to a single LL no one would ever run that. The 'MechLab requires that you have a hard point specific to the weapon type fo reach weapon. If you would give up four hard points to run SLs instead of 1-2 ML/LLs then that's up to you, but you're hamstringing yourself for no good reason.

You seem like you're operating under the assumption that this game will be like the previous BTU games, but it won't. There is no more let's strip everything out and cram as many MLs as we can. You keep saying that nothing can beat a laser boat, are you a secret Dev or a "Family & Friends" beta tester? Those are the only people who have played THIS game.

[Abrahms]

Famous, on 03 May 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Abrahms- I'm going to ignore your attacks on my person, my intelligence, and your inability to use the correct words in your posts and point out what is wrong with your whole concept.

1. The previous MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault games have no bearing on this game. Those games operated on a completely different concept from that the PGI gang is working with.

2. Not all weapons should have the same or similar DPS. A SL is not a short range version of a LL. It is a small laser. In canon it is an anti-infantry weapon, not something used as filler.

3. Boating will not be the same issue in this game as previous ones. If you want to make a boat you need to have a chassis that will support the appropriate hard points, ie something that was a boat from the very beginning. The Awesome is a PPC boat, the Awesome is in this game, you WILL see boats

4. "I WANT SMALL LASERS TO BE BETTER THAN LARGE AT SHORT RANGE!"- This seems to be your key point and there's nothing to discuss here. You can want this to be true all you want, but it's not going to be. A SL will do significantly less damage than a LL and have a much shorter range.

5. You don't appear to have made any effort to read through the Dev blogs or the numerous discussions on the subject. Even if four SL were equivalent to a single LL no one would ever run that. The 'MechLab requires that you have a hard point specific to the weapon type fo reach weapon. If you would give up four hard points to run SLs instead of 1-2 ML/LLs then that's up to you, but you're hamstringing yourself for no good reason.

You seem like you're operating under the assumption that this game will be like the previous BTU games, but it won't. There is no more let's strip everything out and cram as many MLs as we can. You keep saying that nothing can beat a laser boat, are you a secret Dev or a "Family & Friends" beta tester? Those are the only people who have played THIS game.

You havent played this game either. Hence, my intent to make a post hoping that it didnt follow the footsteps of imbalance.

If you read my post, a small laser is not better than a large laser at close range. In fact, it requires twice as many hardpoints to get the same damage out put at close range and just as many tons. It works great as a filler weapon, or for single slots (common on small mechs). Medium lasers are the better choice if the tonnage is available, and if the range is necessary, then large lasers are the better choice. My #s also were not set in stone, so if the large lasers range advantage isnt enough, increase its weight and damage by 10% (or some other #). You notice how ton for ton, you get similar DPS, but you then have hardpoints, recycle, times, etc, to balance. As it is now, the same tons in a large laser is significantly better.

If you read my post right above i addressed boating. Laser boats for sniping purposes are fine. But they should not easily defeat a mixed medium range mech at close range. MW4 that was very easy. I dont want this game to do the same thing.

I like your "defense" to intelligence involving an attack. I merely point out that there is no response to anything intellectual.... it is all "wahh wahh wahh i want my large laser boat to dominate at all ranges."

Sorry, that sucks the life out of the game, and the customization options. An AC10 MRM packing mech with a couple medium lasers in the mix should have the advantage on a long range laser boat. Now, a medium mech wont have enough tons to counter the Novacat, but a Madcat rocking the ac10s with double MRM packs and 4 medium lasers SHOULD beat the novacat at medium range. As it is, the Novacat is too good in all ranges beacus the large lasers do so much damage in the past. Its very easy to wait for the longer cooldown and just pinpoint the center torso in a couple hits.

Stats and bonuses to weapons should matter. A mech should be able to carry short range and long range weapons and not be totally gimp. Boating is too beneficial, and has left the boundaries of niche in recent games. That novacat better NEED to stay at long range. That does not mean he will lose at medium if hes a better pilot, but, as is, the novacat still has the advantage, period. Hence, everyone boats because its the only option, not a viable one.

Edited by Abrahms, 03 May 2012 - 03:15 PM.

[Aelos03]

Well i guess small lasers could be boosted because they are useless if there are no infantry and stuff, also small lasers could help light mechs do more damage if SL get little more effective in close range