271 replies to this topic

[Snuglninja]

No one said go back to that.

[Waking One]

If you think RnR did anything for the gameplay and would fix the poptarting in any way you are horribly mistaken. it would make it even worse because the most optimized builds would be the best, by far.

[merz]

the part that seems forgotten (and PGI has in some ways indicated that they might look at this in the future) is that most BT games have those costs and values because of the battle value (bv) concept, which is oftentimes a fixed figure at the outset of a game that allows participants to prepare a force within their limitations - at the level of an individual mech and the level of an entire deployed force. The recent reddit thread mentioned that weight restrictions for drops were at some point going to be introduced into the game, which will have the entire drop have a tonnage pool from which to allot who brings what and the resulting strategy. This is one of the canon reasons behind everything not being settled through liberal application of assaults with the best equipment possible (as well as maintenance costs..etc)..

PGI has actually done fairly well with implementation of weight classes in a way to keep them relevant on the battlefield - i'd say that the only one suffering from some confusion is the medium class, within which the mechs are primarily treated as souped-up lights and used towards similar purposes. Cicada is a respectable pseudo-light and centurion, famous for its durability, is a distraction/harasser that evenmanages to figure into the current 8man meta. .etc

implementation of some kind of battle value system that factors in equipment tech level/etc, certainly not to the level of TT, would probably be the most interesting approach. With community warfare involving fights over manufacturing points and equipment availability being affected through this, the point would be kind of moot if cost of repair/maintenance didn't factor into things at all.. So yeah, in order for there to be the possibility of territorial conquest in MWO having some kind of greater meaning than ******* contests between 'serious military-style gaming clans' of pro bros, there also has to be the possibility of incurring tangible losses as a result of defeat.

battletech is about attrition, damage control, salvage and logistics. very material things as integral to combat as twitch piloting or minmaxing of builds with the best gear you can korean-grind for. without these things being implemented in some form, we're stuck with a rudimentary instant action mode (to be agumented by a WOT-clone community warfare? worked for those guys from belarus, amirite? cha-chiiinnnng!) that looks like battletech but doesn't quite carry across whatever it was that made battletech more than just another azn giant robot thing.

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

We're not going back to this, ever. They've already said it's not coming back, for any reason.

I know. What i'm adding is 'Unfortunately'. and 'because they're forever bound to courting the casual bambi ( who doesn't, and is not ever going to care.) '

Edited by merz, 17 May 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

merz, on 17 May 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

the part that seems forgotten (and PGI has in some ways indicated that they might look at this in the future) is that most BT games have those costs and values because of the battle value (bv) concept, which is oftentimes a fixed figure at the outset of a game that allows participants to prepare a force within their limitations - at the level of an individual mech and the level of an entire deployed force. The recent reddit thread mentioned that weight restrictions for drops were at some point going to be introduced into the game, which will have the entire drop have a tonnage pool from which to allot who brings what and the resulting strategy. This is one of the canon reasons behind everything not being settled through liberal application of assaults with the best equipment possible (as well as maintenance costs..etc)..

PGI has actually done fairly well with implementation of weight classes in a way to keep them relevant on the battlefield - i'd say that the only one suffering from some confusion is the medium class, within which the mechs are primarily treated as souped-up lights and used towards similar purposes. Cicada is a respectable pseudo-light and centurion, famous for its durability, is a distraction/harasser that evenmanages to figure into the current 8man meta. .etc

implementation of some kind of battle value system that factors in equipment tech level/etc, certainly not to the level of TT, would probably be the most interesting approach. With community warfare involving fights over manufacturing points and equipment availability being affected through this, the point would be kind of moot if cost of repair/maintenance didn't factor into things at all.. So yeah, in order for there to be the possibility of territorial conquest in MWO having some kind of greater meaning than ******* contests between 'serious military-style gaming clans' of pro bros, there also has to be the possibility of incurring tangible losses as a result of defeat.

battletech is about attrition, damage control, salvage and logistics. very material things as integral to combat as twitch piloting or minmaxing of builds with the best gear you can korean-grind for. without these things being implemented in some form, we're stuck with a rudimentary instant action mode (to be agumented by a WOT-clone community warfare? worked for those guys from belarus, amirite? cha-chiiinnnng!) that looks like battletech but doesn't quite carry across whatever it was that made battletech more than just another azn giant robot thing.

This is a PVP game.
There is no campaign.
Even in tabletop, you don't play with BV, the 295858258257572 extra books, the merc rules, campaigns...all that often. You take your robots, I take my robots.

Sometimes, you can use the custom rules to make one of them your 'leader' mech, with a unique load-out. Sometimes, it's all stock. But you roll dice and shoot each other up.

You have 8 hours to set aside four times a week? That's great. 99% of the people who play CBT don't.

Battletech is about giant robots, beating up other robots. Spreadsheets and paperwork belong in EVE and Utopia. If you absolutely must have spreadsheets with your battlemechs, you're free to find some other bearded men to host a 200 hour campaign with. Here, we play giant robots.

I already slew the RnR beast once, and I'll do so again, should it ever rear its ugly head.

Thank you, and good bye.

[merz]

look at whole the community it, for the most part. look at who the founders are. look at who gives a toss. average their ages. do you think a broader, younger demo than the 'bearded dudes' you mention is something PGI has a chance in hell to capture reliably in marketing to? Please. That crowd has, amongst 120991829203 things, stuff like hawken. Battletech means absolutely fanny to them. Its a losing game. Further entrenching to flesh out the depth makes way more sense than diluting it down to COD level.

Aside from 'mwo is a pvp game' being a tautology, what does that, or it being about giant robots, have to do with consequence or depth being bad?

Edited by merz, 17 May 2013 - 09:12 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

merz, on 17 May 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

look at whole the community it, for the most part. look at who the founders are. look at who gives a toss. average their ages. do you think a broader, younger demo than the 'bearded dudes' you mention is something PGI has a chance in hell to capture reliably in marketing to? Please. That crowd has, amongst 120991829203 things, stuff like hawken. Battletech means absolutely fanny to them. Its a losing game.

Aside from 'mwo is a pvp game' being a tautology, what does that, or it being about giant robots, have to do with consequence or depth being bad?

How is a tax related to depth? Will the old people who pushed cash into founders be able to support this game? Hmm?

No.

You should look for my epic thread on RnR. That's what got it killed.

[merz]

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

You should look for my epic thread on RnR. That's what got it killed.

fellating yourself much?

[Vassago Rain]

merz, on 17 May 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

fellating yourself much?

Only doing god's work.

[Hotthedd]

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

How is a tax related to depth? Will the old people who pushed cash into founders be able to support this game? Hmm?

No.

You should look for my epic thread on RnR. That's what got it killed.

It isn't a tax, it is an expense. It is a tradeoff for using the expensive equipment. My insurance premiums on my Audi are higher than my premiums on my Mazda, and if I needed to repair either of them, the repairs on the Audi would also cost more. And yes, the older demographic CAN support this game. I do have to chuckle at your self-importance, believing that YOU are the one who ended R&R.

[Vassago Rain]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

It isn't a tax, it is an expense. It is a tradeoff for using the expensive equipment. My insurance premiums on my Audi are higher than my premiums on my Mazda, and if I needed to repair either of them, the repairs on the Audi would also cost more. And yes, the older demographic CAN support this game. I do have to chuckle at your self-importance, believing that YOU are the one who ended R&R.

It's a tax. PGI agreed.
RnR was killed, largely because of my gigantic thread about it.

Not coming back, in any way, shape, or form.

Deal with it.

[Keifomofutu]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

It isn't a tax, it is an expense. It is a tradeoff for using the expensive equipment. My insurance premiums on my Audi are higher than my premiums on my Mazda, and if I needed to repair either of them, the repairs on the Audi would also cost more. And yes, the older demographic CAN support this game. I do have to chuckle at your self-importance, believing that YOU are the one who ended R&R.

The expensive equipment isn't even "better" per se. Ammo based weapons aren't better they cost weight and space fitting ammo and are usually heavier.

XL engines aren't "better" they give you tonnage at the risk of a quick death through two weaker torsos.

R&R does however make energy weapons flat out better in every way once endgame rewards are accounted for.

So yeah its a tax on certain items but not others.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 17 May 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Keifomofutu, on 17 May 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

The expensive equipment isn't even "better" per se. Ammo based weapons aren't better they cost weight and space fitting ammo and are usually heavier.

XL engines aren't "better" they give you tonnage at the risk of a quick death through two weaker torsos.

R&R does however make energy weapons flat out better in every way once endgame rewards are accounted for.

So yeah its a tax on certain items but not others.

R&R implemented HOW? The old way? Nobody is asking for that. R&R WOULD however incentivize taking lights and mediums over heavies and assaults.

[Vassago Rain]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

R&R implemented HOW? The old way? Nobody is asking for that. R&R WOULD however incentivize taking lights and mediums over heavies and assaults.

Lighst and mediums should be good on their own merits, and not be taken simply because you can't currently afford the actually good stuff.

[Snuglninja]

Vassago Rain if you like the game the way it is by all means play it that way. I just wish that people who want some kind of bv rearm mechanic should have a choice. I think it is part of the bt universe. I can choose conquest, assault, soon 3rd person, I would like a risk rewards mode.

[Hotthedd]

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Lighst and mediums should be good on their own merits, and not be taken simply because you can't currently afford the actually good stuff.

In the battletech universe, lights and mediums are the largest segment of mechs on the field BECAUSE units could not afford to field all Heavies and Assaults.

[merz]

Vassago Rain, on 17 May 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

It's a tax. PGI agreed.

Deal with it.

that you can harness the power of the crying casual (practically to any end..) is not in dispute here. the howl of QQ overcomes damn near everything. what i've wanted to hear was your logic, so far i haven't seen much of it besides appeals to visceral bro feels, your giant robots beat my giant robots, you drink my milkshake, put on shades and get real smug. I get it, you've graduated summa *** laude in 'good posts brah' from goon university., but what is it you're actually trying to say in countering the argument? R&R - some form of it, i would have liked to see it fleshed the FFFFFFfffffffffff out beyond the implementation we had, offered more variance not only in the loadouts people brought, but also in the way they played. there was a tangible motive not to just run to the centre of the ******* map with your arms flailing because :PVP:

We have, rudimentary and pathetic as it is, an incentive to kill - xp we can spend on fanny all relevant things, grind up our efficiencies and some money for next month's (perpetual end-game) content update. Sigh. But have we an incentive to stay alive, one reinforced by some kind of an in-game mechanic? ..naaah. so bring that ac20 jagerbomb with an XL and hope to god you make yourself slightly relevant with 2 quick kills out the door before something with half a mind to look at you cores out the side and sends you into spectator, wishing you were a bad sam jackson. Much of the combat runs this way, but is it fun? depends on your definition i guess. I keep hearing from all too many people that the most fun point of this game so far has been the LRM/SRM bug period when **** dropped from one volley up in FACE BRAAAH, SKKIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLL!

I mean, you be the judge.

Edited by merz, 17 May 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Snuglninja, on 17 May 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Vassago Rain if you like the game the way it is by all means play it that way. I just wish that people who want some kind of bv rearm mechanic should have a choice. I think it is part of the bt universe. I can choose conquest, assault, soon 3rd person, I would like a risk rewards mode.

We've got enough playerbase splitting going on without creating a ridiculously niche mode that all of ten people would choose to play.

Wait for CW there will be more strategic and asset elements there. R&R will probably play a role.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khanublikhan, on 17 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

World of Mechs: Pilot an Assault. Equip all required upgrades to gain maximum possible firepower. Suffer no consequences.

Quite the contrary, the smaller the Mech the lower the repair bill. I had fairly large repair bills during closed Beta... (Death at 4 FpS has a double meaning) I never had a problem making my payments an earning a profit, in an Atlas-D Missile boat.

[Vassago Rain]

Snuglninja, on 17 May 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Vassago Rain if you like the game the way it is by all means play it that way. I just wish that people who want some kind of bv rearm mechanic should have a choice. I think it is part of the bt universe. I can choose conquest, assault, soon 3rd person, I would like a risk rewards mode.

It's not a choice, and not clever/good gamedesign.

There are already countless games out there for people who want to torture themselves. By 'countless,' I mean 'two.' EVE and WoT. EVE has by far the better economy, in the sense that it has an actual economy.

What we had here, and what you're all whining for, is a fun tax. I don't want to play a light for 10 games before I can do one in my atlas. PGI agreed, and it was erased.

Now, if they were to add guild banks, for real conquesting of planets and factories, converting heaps of space bucks into mechwarrior bucks, that can be converted back into real world dollars, intrigue, we had a lot more players, balanced weaponry...then okay, Let's add some rearm and repair to that.

If you don't have an economy, then it's just a fun tax.

merz, on 17 May 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

that you can harness the power of the crying casual (practically to any end..) is not in dispute here. the howl of QQ overcomes damn near everything. what i've wanted to hear was your logic, so far i haven't seen much of it besides appeals to visceral bro feels, your giant robots beat my giant robots, you drink my milkshake, put on shades and get real smug. I get it, you've graduated summa *** laude in 'good posts brah' from goon university., but what is it you're actually trying to say in countering the argument? R&R - some form of it, i would have liked to see it fleshed the FFFFFFfffffffffff out beyond the implementation we had, offered more variance not only in the loadouts people brought, but also in the way they played. there was a tangible motive not to just run to the centre of the ******* map with your arms flailing because :PVP:

I won't spoonfeed you. Go look up my posting history. I made a thread so big, it dwarfed the stickies combined. That was the end of RnR.

[Keifomofutu]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 May 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Quite the contrary, the smaller the Mech the lower the repair bill. I had fairly large repair bills during closed Beta... (Death at 4 FpS has a double meaning) I never had a problem making my payments an earning a profit, in an Atlas-D Missile boat.

You likely had both a premium account and perhaps a founders Atlas-D?(Otherwise why not use DDC as a missile boat).

So you had possibly two legs up on a freemium player who would bleed cash with the same setup.