213 replies to this topic

[Inflatable Fish]

Trauglodyte, on 14 May 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

I agree with you on that, whole heartedly. I've never liked the fact that turn radius, torso twist, etc is all tied into the engine as opposed to being a specific tweak of the chassis. I know that there is a calculation based on engine and chassis tonnage that is intended to limit the meneuverability of the heavier mechs. The poor Hunchy is supposed to be a slow heavy weapons platform designed to operate in the cramped urban environment and that is the one place where you don't want to be plodding so why, due to its smaller engine, is it saddled by being so slow in the other movement areas? Unhook and redesign this and we're on a better road.

The size thing annoys me to NO end. Granted, some are leaner but jeez why is the Treb as tall as an Atlas?

On the other hand, I do think that a lot of people feel like there should be more self sustainability in the Medium class, and I'll agree with that to a point, but are taking their complaints to too much of an extreme when you consider that the Medium is designed in a tween space. That is my only real issue with people wanting more from the weight class. You can't turn a Prius into a 10s car or a monster truck no matter how much you want it to be so. The mental image does tickle me, though.

Now you're making much more sense.

The bottom line is exactly the fact that MWO treats mediums as a filler class between lights and heavies, with no role in which they can excel. This identity crisis is what bothers me the most.

Ps. Obviously shopped, but: http://www.flickr.co...N00/2766639964/

[cyberFluke]

Neverfar, on 12 May 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

This might work, but the counterstrike/CoD crowd that's flodding this game will scream bloody murder if their skill™ is in any way interfered with by simulationist mechanics.

This, a thousand f*cking times, this.

Dumbing down the game as they have has created this crapfest we all know will flop on release. The beancounter tosspots in charge seem completely ignorant of how fickle the weak minded idiots they're attempting to target with this watered down ghost are. By diluting and simplifying the game they are removing the depth of play that keeps a player playing for more than a month. No-one I introduced to the game is still playing, out of nearly fifty people I've gotten to play MW:O, ***ZERO*** still play. That includes seven paying founders, two of which got a refund. They're not even interested in seeing how it's progressed since they last played. They've seen the direction the game has taken and written it off.

There's no more to aiming than pointing your crosshair at the target, leading if the target is moving, then repeatedly alpha striking till the target is dead. I'll repeat what I've said before, my young niece can point a f*cking mouse and click, that seems to be all the "skill" required here. No thought as to positioning for the best shot, speed of your own machine, friction/inclination/sheer strength of the terrain you're on, or *any* other factor. Just point and click.

The supposed "depth" that will be added with "Community Warfare" is already shaping up to be a dull fractured mess in an attempt to persuade players of other games to try their hand here. Backtracking on statements made to sell founders packs to core fans, then telling them "You're not our target audience, so we're changing the spec, but taking your money anyway." isn't being as quietly forgotten as PGIGP would like either.

I think the reason I'm so bitter and annoyed about this is that I personally got suckered for $120. I was lied to and am having the p*ss most thoroughly taken out of me by some beancounting f*cktards that are making money hand over fist. Despite my anger and frustration I still believe someone somewhere did originally want to make an awesome new MechWarrior game, but they signed it away to some greedy f*ckwit company to get it off the ground. Unfortunately, that means the original game will never be produced, as the avarice driven person thing at the top won't make as many zeroes.

Damn, I'm disappointed with MW:O.

Edited by cyberFluke, 14 May 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[Vodrin Thales]

The role for mediums is simple: to be a substitute for a heavy or assault then the later are not available. Tonnage limits on drops make them useful again. A simple solution to the problem.

[cyberFluke]

Vodrin Thales, on 14 May 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

The role for mediums is simple: to be a substitute for a heavy or assault then the later are not available. Tonnage limits on drops make them useful again. A simple solution to the problem.

That's no solution. You're basically saying, "Sorry pal, not enough weight left for you to bring your mech, you'll have to pilot a deathtrap this game." Someone ends up having to pilot a crap mech with no role because of some arbitrary drop weight rule? Terrible idea.

Fix the basic mechanics of the game that are ***very*** broken, (Heat, ridiculous accuracy, boating) then re-examine the roles. Problem is, none of these things are broken, if you believe the Ask The Devs responses. All this shows is the dev team have little to no direction and are floundering badly.

Edited by cyberFluke, 14 May 2013 - 11:43 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Profiteer, on 12 May 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with mediums... the problem is 8 vs 8 with no tonnage restrictions.

When each side is allowed to take 8 of anything, why wouldn't they choose the best?

If you take real life as an example: WW2 - medium tanks were the workhorses, far more of them were built than all other types combined. The Americans had the Sherman, Germany the Panzer IV, Russia the T-34. Why? because heavy tanks are expensive and time consuming to build.

You're far better off to field 3+ mediums for each one of the enemy's heavy's.

The same would be true here - imagine 24 hunchbacks vs 8 Atlas.

This is why we NEED weight limits for battles.

If you want to bring nothing but 90 ton jump sniping highlanders then you are going to be very outnumbered vs a bunch of lights/mediums.

Listen to this man.

[cyberFluke]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 14 May 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Listen to this man.

Unfortunately, as PGI have already proved with the lag problem we have; CryEngine and the server hardware, configured and used in the architecture PGI have cannot handle that number of players in one game.

Cannot happen, the system as it is cannot achieve what you suggest.

[Trauglodyte]

cyberFluke, on 14 May 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

Unfortunately, as PGI have already proved with the lag problem we have; CryEngine and the server hardware, configured and used in the architecture PGI have cannot handle that number of players in one game.

Cannot happen, the system as it is cannot achieve what you suggest.

Plus, ELO is a time limiting factor by itself. Adding in an additional variable like weight limits or weight class numbers, even, would bog it down to a point where it may take 15+ minutes to get a match. People don't want to waste their time so that would just cause splintering or population loss.

So, as a Medium player, you either run as a pilot fish swimming in the wake of the Whale Shark or you play like a baracuda and hit/vanish. I have lots of analogies, btw

[Inflatable Fish]

Trauglodyte, on 14 May 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

So, as a Medium player, you either run as a pilot fish swimming in the wake of the Whale Shark or you play like a baracuda and hit/vanish. I have lots of analogies, btw

I appreciate your choice of fish metaphors.

But I can't agree with what you're saying. As in, the idea seems sound, but we lack the means to execute it. As a result, there's always a better fish for the given task.

Edited by Inflatable Fish, 14 May 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Braggart]

Trauglodyte, on 14 May 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

So, as a Medium player, you either run as a pilot fish swimming in the wake of the Whale Shark or you play like a baracuda and hit/vanish. I have lots of analogies, btw

So you are telling us to either play like a really weak heavy mech, or play like a really slow, and very large Light mech.

Brilliant.

[BillyM]

Time for mediums to get some love PGI!

Allow 275 engines in the Hunchback and Blackjacks!

--billyM

[jeffsw6]

I really think mediums will become more viable if there are tonnage-limits, simply because you won't be facing 1 atlas, 1 stalker, 3 highlanders, 2 cataphracts, and a raven so often.

[Trauglodyte]

Braggart, on 14 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

So you are telling us to either play like a really weak heavy mech, or play like a really slow, and very large Light mech.

Brilliant.

Some people read into/hear what they want.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Play style is limited by the numbers you have and the communication you have. If you, as a fast Medium, can group up with 1-2 more equally fast Mediums, you make for an extremely dangerous and fast flanking force. If you, as a slow Medium, stick by the side of a Heavy or Assault, you make for an effective rear guard (see option #1) or a force multiplier against other Heavies/Assaults that play poorly. If you play as long ranged support, you help the entire team.

I really don't get what some of you want out of your tonnage. This game has limitations and you can only do so much with what you have. At 40-50 tons, you're not going to pack as much weaponry/armor as anything heavier than you and you won't move as quickly as something lighter than you. That doesn't, however, limit you from being effective, supportive, or beneficial. Play to your strengths, whatever they may be based on what you're driving and how you kitted it.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 14 May 2013 - 01:16 PM.

[stjobe]

Braggart, on 14 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

So you are telling us to either play like a really weak heavy mech, or play like a really slow, and very large Light mech.

Brilliant.

I took my CN9-D out for a couple of matches today, I haven't played it since the new stats were implemented, so I thought it'd be a great chance to see just how useless mediums are in the current game.

Here's what happened:



586.5 average XP, 213.5 average damage, 1.5 kills per match. And that's with managing to kill myself with 12 damage done on that ridiculous out-of-bounds patch near Kappa on River City in one match.

All that in a 300XL, AC/10, 2xML, 2xSSRM-2, 106+ kph Centurion.

The trick? Stay with the heavies, don't rush forward, chase off and/or kill any flanking lights or mediums, and whatever you do, don't go one-on-one with heavier opponents. In short, play it like a medium, not like a light or assault.

[Corvus Antaka]

imho the best solution is to create a mech4 type team attrition scoring system where lights earn more money and get bonus cash for damage done, and assault pilots need to really shine to make the big bucks, thus giving more incentive to run cheaper more efficient mechs, something we lost with R&R being lost.

This would also be helpful in balancing tournaments, so 20 ton lights can score well vs 35 ton lights, or 80 ton assaults vs 100 ton assaults.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 14 May 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[Keifomofutu]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 14 May 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

imho the best solution is to create a mech4 type team attrition scoring system where lights earn more money and get bonus cash for damage done, and assault pilots need to really shine to make the big bucks, thus giving more incentive to run cheaper more efficient mechs, something we lost with R&R being lost.

This would also be helpful in balancing tournaments, so 20 ton lights can score well vs 35 ton lights, or 80 ton assaults vs 100 ton assaults.

Well right now heavies and assaults flat out make way more. So lights and mediums really should get a credit bonus just to pull even with earning potential.

[Trauglodyte]

End game compensation needs to be weighted based on, well, weight, battlevalue, team value vs team value, contribution, etc. Currently, there is a ranking contribution system but it is flawed in that the guy with the most guns that lands the most wins out.

[cyberFluke]

Don't forget that assaults actually cost a fair chunk more to acquire, that either has to be factored in, or all mechs should cost the same.

This is especially true with Mechs being purchasable with Real Cash (MC). If a light is as effective on the battlefield as an assault, it should cost the same. Simple.

[Keifomofutu]

cyberFluke, on 14 May 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Don't forget that assaults actually cost a fair chunk more to acquire, that either has to be factored in, or all mechs should cost the same.

This is especially true with Mechs being purchasable with Real Cash (MC). If a light is as effective on the battlefield as an assault, it should cost the same. Simple.

I generally think of the assault cost as an intended disincentive to prevent everyone who starts the game from going after the biggest mech first. I don't think assault class needs to make more than the others just because of that.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Neverfar, on 11 May 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

I like this post and am very sympathetic to your plight. I'm expecting a lot of bloat-boaters (and people roleplaying as non-bloat-boaters) to say to use skill™ and tactics™ dismissively in the responses, though. Why "harass" when bringing yet another bloat boat can "harass" for a lot more damage and further solidify the British musket line? It's cute to state how tactically brilliant you can be in a metagame-mediocre mech, but surprise, pal: you're offering a tertiary role at best to what is supposed to be a freely-chosen slot in the game. Nowhere in MWO does it say: "if you choose this size class of mech you should be terrified of otherwise identical players who had the brilliance to choose more guns at longer range, and shame on you if you try to actually kill them." No one wants to be your waterboy, your powder monkey, or your squire.

Harrasing a mech getting blown to bits by another assault or heavy will often get you credit for the kill, because your weapons might to less damage, but a hole in a mech's armor is just an exploit you need for a kill. In the "backseat pilot" view we get after we die I often see people who don't hit the button to target the opposing mech. Which means you can't exploit those areas that are light in armor because of battle.

Archers were the first line of offense, soldiers the second and cavalry was used to exploit weaknesses in the line or used to strike fear into the enemy so they ran away. re-inforcements (which is where the mediums are best used as) were always used offensively to strengthen the line because they could easily fight and were fresh to the battle. The enemy was tired and easiy beaten at that point.

Squires, were simply knights in training for the most part. And used to defend the commanders at the rear of the lines...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 14 May 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[armyof1]

Trauglodyte, on 14 May 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

End game compensation needs to be weighted based on, well, weight, battlevalue, team value vs team value, contribution, etc. Currently, there is a ranking contribution system but it is flawed in that the guy with the most guns that lands the most wins out.

That is so true, for example when comparing the earning of CBills when piloting my Cent compared to running my RS, it's like I'm running premium time with the RS.