118 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Vasces Diablo, on 08 February 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

I (for one) wish we had to use the specific varients and had almost no customization. The hard points thing helps, but the open customization leads to boating and really we might as well just have "generic chassis" for each weight group.

I'm happy see that they are playing up "quirks" like rotation range and speed, but for the most part, any mech can fill about any roll right now. (With the obvious exception of the "Scout Atlas" and the "Assault Spider")

Hell no.

Not unless they cut heat generation by a factor of 3 across the board, and double ammo per ton.

Trials don't work for those reasons, not enough ammo to relfect the double armor much less the rate of fire, and not CLOSE to enough heatsinks to compensate for the rate of fire.

ALL the way across the board.

Oh not to mention, the loadouts do anemic damage against double armor, like next to non. I regularly blow through 7-9 tons of AC5/UAC5 ammo, and that is a 5 minute round.

I'm supposed to do this with two? Thanks but no thanks.

[Sidekick]

If you go into battle with more than 4 tons of (doubled) MWO-Ammo, you are failing with your mech concept and your ability to pilot a mech. I have never used more than 5 tons (3UAC-Muromets build) of ammo for a certain weapon, and so far I rarely ran dry.

Pilot smart, aim, use energy weapons as supplements, don´t blast your LRMs blindly but wait for the right moment to strike.
...again, I guess this seems to matter in no way at all, since we can compansate these lacks with some extra ammo.

[Stormwolf]

topgun505, on 08 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

You currently are working with units that in some respects are BETTER than clan omni mechs. With omni units you can NOT change the engine. Period. You can not remove any weapons which are not mounted within the modular weapon pods. In MWO you can change everything. You are just limited by the hard points. That limitation, however, is minimal when you have units which are plenty capable of boating.

You can actually change the engine and armor levels of a omni at the cost of losing its omni capabilities.
Though in this game it might be a improvement if you lock it in a boat config.

[Yokaiko]

Sidekick, on 09 February 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

If you go into battle with more than 4 tons of (doubled) MWO-Ammo, you are failing with your mech concept and your ability to pilot a mech. I have never used more than 5 tons (3UAC-Muromets build) of ammo for a certain weapon, and so far I rarely ran dry.

Pilot smart, aim, use energy weapons as supplements, don´t blast your LRMs blindly but wait for the right moment to strike.
...again, I guess this seems to matter in no way at all, since we can compansate these lacks with some extra ammo.

LOL


125? **** that is all, don't use double rate fire like ever do you.?


My 4X has 9 tons on it 4 ac5 and 5 UAC 5 I run it dry about every 4 games or so.

[Karl Streiger]

Sidekick, on 08 February 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

From my point of view, the IP and the intended use of a mech should matter, because ignoring them means ignoring the tradition and the meaning of the game. Fluff DOES matter, not just for a minority, it matters for the die-hard enthusiast that can stick to a franchise for years and years to come.

Thanks a lot Sidekick. What you said is 100% what i wanted to say.

I was hardly to read beyond the post of Jackob Knight for a really long time. I have taken a break - not to fall prey to the flame or a troll...
So Jackob?

Jakob Knight, on 08 February 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

Wall of Text Warning (but then, Roles and Perks for everything in the game isn't a discussion for the light of mind)!
...

your first sentence worked well and i really thought well a objective post, but

Jakob Knight, on 08 February 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

... the perks and roles are methods of retribution and petty close-mindedness that place restriction
..inability of the players to see a given battlemech beyond what their own preferences and/or expectations are. '
...people either don't want them to be fighting in a particular role or are blindly hateful of the mech and its abilities....

Well you post a extraordinary example of a well hidden offense - and in some points it shows lack of knowlege - or the usage of cheap propaganda.
ECM renders LRM usesless? - well in a stock only battle the only mech capable to carry a ECM would be the Raven 3L. It looks like, that you are using - "my false" crusade to fight your own. I hope you can explain yourself and i really hope it would not be as offending as the last one.

So here is a CLARIFICATION:
I want to use this topic for:

• an objective (or as near as it could be) discussion - about the if and whens of a perk and quirk system for available BattleMechs
  
• how could perks look like
  
• is it viable to use perks or is it on the long run a nice idea - but thats it

Me for my part love BattleTech - what i dislike a guys that want to tell me - BattleTech != Mechwarrior. (!= stand for not equal)


i accept to a point that Mechwarrior is not the same as TableTop - but I'm really sure that most that say that never played a single (or only a handful) of games with Recordsheets, pen paper a calculater and dice.

Why this: well the math of BattleTech and Mechwarrior is to a point the same. If you are able to abstract this - it is the same, becasue dice are just a tool of statistic. A game on the board game between a veteran and a newbie is as clear at it is in Mechwarrior (only luck will give victory to the newbie - in Mechwarrior as well as in the board game)

There is a reason why i choose the discussion forum and not the suggestion forum to place this topic.
On the long run it mean: when you want a stable plattform for the GaussRifle there have to be a Cestus (a mech that you can rebuild really easy with the K2 - but for a number of reasons no one us this config)
This is however only a discussion - keep that in mind - please.

Ok BT:
Although it is still a little bit of the line.
Ammunition - obviously you need little more ammunition as you would need it in TT.
However since the CB i hardly run dry. It happens only when both sides don't use boats and both side are equal from the performance of their players.

Last thursday my Catapract run empty - after i have used 3tons of Gauss Slugs. In the end we loose that battle - but it was great fun - and it was a great moment of MWO how it could be. Simple because there were not freaking...ultra hyper alpha killing monstrosity's that run/ruin a good battle.
I never felt good when a battle is finished after less than 5min - because one team was steam rolling the other, or because both teams used boats.

Last sentences for this post:
when i want to run a 64kph infighter - I use a Victor
when i want a direct fire support mech, for long range - I use a Awesome

However i have no problems with people that think that their SRM Awesome can go 1 on 1 with my Atlas...

EDIT:
Nearly forgotten this one
In AskTheDevs weapon types of different manufactures are mentioned. A benefit of using a stock - or near stock mech would work exactly.
For example when you want vanilla PPCs...you have to use the Kreuss-PPC on the AWS-8Q

Edited by Karl Streiger, 11 February 2013 - 01:08 AM.

[Eddrick]

I don't feel like breaking down two large posts. The ones on this same page talking about the lacks of chassis making it hard to force Mechs to stick to thier intended roles.

I agree on this part compleatly. The selection is very slim compared to tabletop. Does this mean compleat freedom should be allowed? NO! Some restriction needs to be in place.

BTW. Karl Streiger. I would love to see a Cestus in MechWarriro Online and see very little reason not to have it. It even fits in the timeline. Perhaps, just because two of the three available veriants in the timeline (6X and 6Z) would likly have identical hardpoints.

[Sidekick]

I´m wondering... is there any IS mech in BT lore around 65t that fields 2 AC20 or 2 Gauss in his torsos? Or to adress a current meta discussion: is there a mech fielding 6 SRM6?

[IceSerpent]

Sidekick, on 11 February 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

I´m wondering... is there any IS mech in BT lore around 65t that fields 2 AC20 or 2 Gauss in his torsos?

Probably not, due to the fact that in BT lore it's better to have weapons in the arms due to wider firing arc, while in MWO weapons in the arms suffer from convergence issue much more than torso-mounted weapons and firing arc doesn't play such a big role.

Quote

Or to adress a current meta discussion: is there a mech fielding 6 SRM6?

There are Clan SRM boats - off top of my head, Arctic Wolf and Mad Dog at least, not sure about IS ones - IS seems to be more into LRM boats in canon.

[KitK]

It is so sad to see this subject of restircting mechs into canon roles crop up again and be 6 pages long already. Blech!

Anyway, this settled it for me. It's from ask the devs 19.

Quote

Q: With the idea of role warfare we have been given a selection of mechs designated to specific roles by lore and actual function (speed/armor/guns/etc). Is it the development team's vision and expectation that players would deploy these mechs in like fashion or can we feel free to take what we know (beta or non-beta) about the mechs and their implementation and redefine them (within the hardpoint limitations) to suit our own ideas of the role and fuction of a given mech? [KitK]
A: The system is pretty flexible. Lights, for example, can scout, or they can skirmish. The Dragon can scout too, or it can brawl. So yeah, we try to make them as capable of multiple roles as we can. [Garth]

Edited by KitK, 11 February 2013 - 11:45 AM.

[Mackman]

KitK, on 11 February 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

It is so sad to see this subject of restircting mechs into canon roles crop up again and be 6 pages long already. Blech!

Anyway, this settled it for me. It's from ask the devs 19.

But mah table-tops!!!

I sympathize (a little) with those arguing for more restrictions to better fit with the table-top universe. But a huge part of this game's appeal to me is the sheer amount of customization available within every variant of every chassis.

You can argue against something for being unbalanced. But to argue against it just because you think it "shouldn't" be allowed doesn't carry a whole lot of weight, especially when your expectations are being shaped by what's primarily a turn-based, dice-rolling table-top game.

[KitK]

Mackman, on 11 February 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

But mah table-tops!!!

I sympathize (a little) with those arguing for more restrictions to better fit with the table-top universe. But a huge part of this game's appeal to me is the sheer amount of customization available within every variant of every chassis.

A huge part of table top for me is the rules that allow customizing, tweaking, and rebuiding from scratch. Mech fluff is a page long. Mech construction is a whole chapter! The Wolverine (just for an example) had 15 canon varients(http://www.sarna.net...ne_(BattleMech). Even the much maligned spatCat is simply an extention of of the canon Butterbee hero mech.

It seems a lot of people left the mechs to FASA and focused their own creativity into the on-board aspect of TT. That is cool, but my creativity started in the "mechlab." So, the thought of being pidgeon-holed by canon in MWO not only makes my skin crawl, but is also arguing canon vs. canon (ie canon fluff vs canon mechlab). MWO is caught in the middle for daring to do both.

[Mercules]

To me it is rather simple.

When playing TT, the flaws apparent in the rule system came into glaring clarity when players were allowed to design their own mechs using the optional mech creation rules. When players were limited to stock mechs, their variants, and minor field mods the games were much more balanced and enjoyable for everyone.

The first time you ran into a 100 ton mech, with two axes, Triple Strength Myomer, and an assortment of energy weapons used to generate and maintain heat at specific levels only placed in the Torsos and Head to allow the arms to be used.... you died a little inside. That is right, 2 40 point physical attacks that use the punch table for hits on top of whatever lasers they fired off that turn to maintain their heat at 9.

I don't mind MWO's mechlab system. The hardpoints work to keep some focus on the loadout of the mech. Some of us have seen the results of an unrestricted mechlab and the builds that come out of it and know there have to be some limitations on mech builds.

I do think the right approach to encouraging certain chassis and weapons and those going together are minor benifits to doing so. AWS typically is a PPC mech and so we give it a bonus with PPCs, maybe reduce heat by half a point or increase damage by a point. It's enough to make you consider putting those on the Awesome instead of Large Lasers if you were going to run the frame anyway or if you want to use PPCs to at least consider if you want them on an Awesome or some other mech who wouldn't get the bonus.

Give Commando's a reason to load on something other than Streaks by giving them a minor bonus to regular SRMs. The Streaks are still VERY tempting to run as they are potent, but 2 SRM 6s with some sort of bonus may make it a toss up as to which you want.

Hunchback is built around an AC/20 in the Hunch. Give it a bonus of some sort even if it is as simple as getting 2 extra ammo per ton of AC/20 ammo. Not game breaking but a nice perk for a person who leaves a Hunchback at least somewhat stock. Right now the reason to run an AC/20 in a Hunchback is.... Um... anyone got one?

[KitK]

Mercules, on 11 February 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

To me it is rather simple.

When playing TT, the flaws apparent in the rule system came into glaring clarity when players were allowed to design their own mechs using the optional mech creation rules. When players were limited to stock mechs, their variants, and minor field mods the games were much more balanced and enjoyable for everyone.

The first time you ran into a 100 ton mech, with two axes, Triple Strength Myomer, and an assortment of energy weapons used to generate and maintain heat at specific levels only placed in the Torsos and Head to allow the arms to be used.... you died a little inside. That is right, 2 40 point physical attacks that use the punch table for hits on top of whatever lasers they fired off that turn to maintain their heat at 9.

You've likely nailed something there that is core to the issue. There is huge base of TT players who have also had your experience. Experience has proven that house rules restictions to mech customization have enriched their TT games immensely. And they have had games ruined by super min/maxed mechs. Thus, they cringe at [boat]Cat because they see the "ruin" translating from TT to MWO much more smoothly than other aspects. I've been on sarna.net long enough to know well the arguments in this feud. The feud has bled across to MWO, and this shows a bit of why it is so deep and keeps coming back around.

So, in many ways this isn't about one side wanting canon only builds that stay in the role, it's more about seeing custization here do the same negative things it did in TT, which throws up a lot of huge red flags for people. It is for similar reason some people hate the Clans and wouldn't mind if they were delayed indefinately. I just think it's interesting that at the heart of this issue it is deeper than simply fanbois wanting canon stock vs min/maxers wanting a free-range mech lab.

I personally love an "anything goes" style mechlab and would use custom mechs over stock anyday. But I've also learned to greatly appreciate the enrichment that can comes from not using an "anything goes" style mechlab. Thus, I find the hardpoint compromise PGI has come up with very interesting.

[Mazzyplz]

i didn't realize this post was about the awesome's role.

i only read the first few post but this is what it is:

awesome is a vanguard mech, it doesn't mean you stand next to the atlas in the middle or front.
you stand in the back to exterminate lights and mediums who are flanking, and still can snipe up front from the last line to help the assaults

[Karl Streiger]

KitK, on 11 February 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Anyway, this settled it for me. It's from ask the devs 19.

Oh... didn't got that.
Well a pity - and a huge lack of options. Even when i have to admit - that the Dragon would be a miserable scout.

Mercules made a good point - is here anybody who is afraid seeing a Hunchback with a AC 20? - Or did you think - what a stupid pup?
For most of us it is the last one... My fatlast - even with doubled armore need just a single salvo of my 5th FireGroup - to rip through his armor and disable his gun.
Some of you may say - thats the intention of the Hunchback - don't fight from the beginning, stay in second line until the front line of the enemy is hauled enough.

From the intention the Hunchback - is actually the only real brawler in this game. (K2 and CTF as well as Awesome are more of line mechs, Atlas is more the command mech, dragon and Centurion are Jack in all Trades) -
It was designed to take damage and to deal damage - it work in TT it work in the LORE but it didn't work in MWO because of several reasons.
First - you have better designs to full fill the brawling role
Second - pinpoint accurate weapons coring the right torso
third - 10 crit main weapon

But at least I think KitK made a good point too. In the CW - minmaxed chassis will ru(n|in)ing the game - but there will also by a large part of players the will organize them self to fight more balanced battles - with chassis closer to BattleTech.

However I won't push that farther - even if I have to add that i didn't talk about making MWO more like TableTop. I'm talking about about making MWO closer to BattleTech with its fundamental lore.

[Johnny Reb]

Heh, a TT game is great, however once it comes to the RTS( real time shooter) video game, the rules mean nothing. Hard points are a great way to "try" to keep it close, however, take away customization and that is the end. So, you have non cannon builds, cannon left the game when ppl can customize! Its a brave new Mech-World, its here and just deal or complain more just don't leave!

Edited by Johnny Reb, 12 February 2013 - 12:25 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Johnny Reb, on 12 February 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

Heh, a TT game is great, however once it comes to the RTS( real time shooter) video game, the rules mean nothing. Hard points are a great way to "try" to keep it close, however, take away customization and that is the end. So, you have non cannon builds, cannon left the game when ppl can customize! Its a brave new Mech-World, its here and just deal or complain more just don't leave!

Karl Streiger, on 12 February 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

However I won't push that farther - even if I have to add that i didn't talk about making MWO more like TableTop. I'm talking about about making MWO closer to BattleTech with its fundamental lore.

Again and again and again.

MWO is a derivative of BattleTech
TT is a derivative of BattleTech

Even when there wouldn't have been any BattleTech lore without the development of the TT.
Just abstract the round of 10 secs and movement of TT into something like real time - and then reduce that real time - reduce all those options to MWO MinMaxedCombatSimulator that uses BattleMechs

You can not convert TT directly into MWO and that was never the purpose of this topic.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 February 2013 - 12:39 AM.

[Sidekick]

Ah, I wasn´t aware how far stretched the problem with min/maxing was in the TT. When I was playing BT, it was just stock mechs and strict (minimal) modification rules. So I kinda learned to love the original designs.

Knowing that the minmax-hammer has struck BT as well as it does MWO makes me a little sad. But at least the creators of the newer game might learn from the mistakes done 25 years ago.... can they?

please, can they learn?

[Joseph Mallan]

Min/max players are actually controlled by the players at the table. if a modified Mech is brought to the table a vote is taken to allow said Mod. if the vote is No, that player needs to find a new ride. Enforced by the tables game master/referee.