4 replies to this topic

[Sable Dove]

The current system makes no sense, and is pretty obviously just meant to be a c-bill sink. You want Artemis, you have to pay for it in the upgrade tab, and it's automatically applied to all relevant weapons. Can't spare the weight/slots for that new build you want to try? Too bad, because you have to pay to un-upgrade your mech.

So here's what it should be: Have Artemis-enabled launchers as separate weapons. Simple as that.

Want SRM6+Artemis? Buy the SRM6+Artemis.
Now you want a plain old SRM6? Buy the SRM6, and put that SRM6+Artemis on another mech.

Like Artemis on LRMs, but not SRMs? You can have LRM+Artemis and regular SRMS, and you don't have to lose 1 ton/slot for each SRM.

[focuspark]

This wouldn't be a bad idea - however I believe the point is that you cannot mix Artemis and non-Artemis missiles currently. Not sure why not, but you cannot (except Streaks).

[Sable Dove]

There's probably a dumb lore reason for it, but I'm not really a fan of following dumb lore. The year is 3050, and we don't have CCTV? Let's build giant mechs, and put the pilot in the least protected area we can. Then also give it glass instead of plate armour. Oh, and don't worry about any sort of rear-view. No one could ever get behind a mech.

I say if the lore says we have to make dumb game design decisions, ignore the lore. They already have for numerous other things.

[Runenstahl]

The "lore" behind many of those things is that the continuing warfare crippled the infrastructure of the different realms so badly that much of the known technology was lost. Hence the term "losttech".

Sable Dove, on 09 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

I say if the lore says we have to make dumb game design decisions, ignore the lore. They already have for numerous other things.

I do agree with you... up to a point. The devs already moved away from some TT-rules to make the game more interesting for everyone, simply cause this is NOT a TT game anymore. And those decision were right.

If we want it "realistically" however... let's see:
No more giant robots. A more conventional tank has a MUCH lower profile while those big lumbering mechs are just walking targets.
Weapons with "realistic" 3050 technology ? Yeah, we would play on a battlefield the size of a continent. Once our radar detects an enemy we launch a GUIDED long range missile that would blow the enemy to parts.

For example: many people like modern airplane simulators where the winner is the first one that gets a lock on a distant enemy and fires a few FF missiles. Personally however, I prefer good old "dogfights" like we see in some space sims or WWI or WWII aerial combat games. And thats what Battletech / Mechwarrior is basically. It's nowhere even NEAR being realistic. But thats actually part of the fun.

That being said: yes, Artemis being an all-or-none system is part of the original TT rules. I don't mind that the devs stick to that, but I do agree that this upgrade (and all the other ones too) should go into your "sparebox" to be mounted or dismounted to your liking (like your weapons and other equipment). At the very least they could make it free to remove an upgrade.

[Adridos]

Sable Dove, on 09 February 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Let's build giant mechs, and put the pilot in the least protected area we can.

Then also give it glass instead of plate armour.

Oh, and don't worry about any sort of rear-view. No one could ever get behind a mech.

As per the first: http://www.sarna.net...Mounted_Cockpit
Besides, you don't put the helm of a nuclear submarine right next to the engine.

As for the second part, that's not glass. Or how do you think could it whitstand a hit by the gauss rifle? It is actually the best armor around and it can be seen through. Think armoring the tank with diamond armor.

Lasty lore completely supports the rear-view camer in every single cockpit there is. Actually it states we should have a 360° view. However, that "dumb game decision" is made because our engine can't support the rear looking viewport.