291 replies to this topic

[Screech]

FupDup, on 07 June 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Asking for realism in a giant robot game is like a straight woman walking into MWO:forums in search of a date.

Fixed.

[Further]

Hey, nerds.

How about heavier tonnage can be seen at say, 400 m with advanced, and as tonnage goes down so does sensor range, so a light could get on your *** with him only popping on teh radar when he's close.

Also, **** with the whining, these forums are starting to look like diablo 3's

Edited by Further, 07 June 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Appogee]

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

How about heavier tonnage can be seen at say, 400 m with advanced, and as tonnage goes down so does sensor range, so a light could get on your *** with him only popping on teh radar when he's close.

Not a bad idea.

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Also, **** with the whining, these forums are starting to look like diablo 3's

As I recall, players there had legitimate concerns about gameplay balance issues, too.

Do you think people shouldn't talk about gameplay balance issues in forums entitled ''Gameplay Balance''?

[Further]

Appogee, on 07 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Not a bad idea.


As I recall, players there had legitimate concerns about gameplay balance issues, too.

Do you think people shouldn't talk about gameplay balance issues in forums entitled ''Gameplay Balance''?

I believe there's a fine line between legitimate discussion about balance and complaining.

For example, OP offered no solution for the problem. If you have an issue, atleast have a suggested solution, however terrible said solution may be. It's part of the healing process bro.

Edit so my post isnt just complaining.

I think on top of my above idea, speed should be taken into consideration. A 100ton atlas hauling buns across the landscape will shake more than one creeping along. And if you want to take the idea further (My name i said it!) have the terrain become a factor.

You may get it to a point where mechs find a "Sandy" path to run because the siesmic can't pick it up. Those suggestions of course would have to be implimented in the future because fo the complexities.

As of now, using speed and tonnage as variables to control what you can see on the seismigraph would add great gameplay elements and fix the OP-ness.

Edited by Further, 07 June 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

For example, OP offered no solution for the problem. If you have an issue, atleast have a suggested solution, however terrible said solution may be. It's part of the healing process bro.

He suggested that seismic sensor wouldn't work for non-stationary mechs. That's not necessarily a solution I agree with, but it's definitely suggesting one. Good job on lecturing on forum etiquette without bothering to read the op.

[MustrumRidcully]

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

I believe there's a fine line between legitimate discussion about balance and complaining.

For example, OP offered no solution for the problem. If you have an issue, atleast have a suggested solution, however terrible said solution may be. It's part of the healing process bro.

What OP do you mean? THe OP that started the thread, that contains a possible solution? Is that the one that doesn't have a suggested solution?


---

Besides that -no, you don't always have to offer a solution. Sometimes you can just state that there is a problem. That's still far more useful than not saying anything and let the devs in the dark.

In fact, I've seen countless of solutions offered by fellow players to countless of issues. I rarely see one taken. It might actually be wasted effort (an effort I am guilty of wasting very often, and will probably continue to do so) to offer solutions yourself.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 June 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Esplodin]

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

I believe there's a fine line between legitimate discussion about balance and complaining.

Stuff I care about is legitimate discussion. Stuff I don't care about or dislike is complaining.

I think that sums it up, don't you?

[Shae Starfyre]

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

I believe there's a fine line between legitimate discussion about balance and complaining.

For example, OP offered no solution for the problem. If you have an issue, atleast have a suggested solution, however terrible said solution may be. It's part of the healing process bro.

Edit so my post isnt just complaining.

I think on top of my above idea, speed should be taken into consideration. A 100ton atlas hauling buns across the landscape will shake more than one creeping along. And if you want to take the idea further (My name i said it!) have the terrain become a factor.

You may get it to a point where mechs find a "Sandy" path to run because the siesmic can't pick it up. Those suggestions of course would have to be implimented in the future because fo the complexities.

As of now, using speed and tonnage as variables to control what you can see on the seismigraph would add great gameplay elements and fix the OP-ness.

Also, consider that 100 ton masking other lights or mediums around it (larger diameter indicator on mini-map); only with scrutinity, taking your attention away from the windshield, might you notice other, smaller, less substantial blips therein.

Edited by Aphoticus, 07 June 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[FunkyFritter]

I think the concept behind the sensor is fundamentally flawed and should be removed entirely. A situational sensor implies counterplay, the idea that the enemy can realize they're facing one and take measures to sneak past it. As a module however that's not an option, there's no way to know who has a seismic sensor installed until you commit to a surprise attack and get punished for it. They could nerf it down to a point where it's in line with other modules, but it still wouldn't contribute anything positive to gameplay.

[Jestun]

I'd prefer more of a scaling solution where higher speed causes interference or even ghost images as your own stomps mix with other players stomps.

Consider each footfall as a drop landing in water, where the ripples meet and change shape, direction & pattern the sensor gets back data it cannot understand.

When stationary it can see the source of each wave but the faster your own mech moves the less predictable it gets until it becomes dangerous to put too much trust in it at high speeds.

Edited by Jestun, 07 June 2013 - 11:47 AM.

[CygnusX7]

So basically any mech that gets themselves in too deep while "sneaking around" is going to blame their death on the enemy having a seismic sensor.

[LordBraxton]

Once again.

seismic is a terrible idea

it minimizes the need for scouting

minimizes the need for situational awareness

and gives a massive advantage to anyone with the huge GXP stockpile

I have the GXP

but seismic belongs in Halo: Combat Evolved (it is literally the same system)

not mechwarrior

REMOVE SEISMIC, REFUND GXP\CBILLS

Edited by LordBraxton, 07 June 2013 - 11:58 AM.

[Soy]

Bow before the Seismic!

[Further]

NEEEERDS!

Siesmic is boss. I love Blasting Lights who try to sneak up on me with a Alpha from my Misery.

You so silly.

[Appogee]

Further, on 07 June 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

For example, OP offered no solution for the problem. If you have an issue, atleast have a suggested solution, however terrible said solution may be. It's part of the healing process bro.

What...?! I suggested a very specific solution in the OP and even ran a poll about that specific solution vs alternatives.

You might want to add to your forum etiquette lecture a lesson on reading the posts you're responding to FFS.


---


In other news, for those who are actually reading the thread...

72% of voters are in favour of a change to Seismic.
* 54% of voters are in favour of my suggested change.
* 18% of voters propose an alternative change.

My thanks to those who read, voted, commented and made alternative suggestions.



28% want to retain Seismic unchanged.

Edited by Appogee, 08 June 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[M0rpHeu5]

Seismic is indeed op but only couse the other modules are way worse. i say remove the sesmic untill they add more good module choisies.

Edited by M0rpHeu5, 08 June 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

M0rpHeu5, on 08 June 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Seismic is indeed op but only couse the other modules are way worse. i say remove the sesmic untill they add more good module choisies.

If you can't understand why a 360^o, infalliable, IFF radar upgrade that requires no slots or tonnage is a bad idea in a Mechwarrior game, then you clearly haven't grasped the series.

In fairness, neither has whomever at PGI came up with this module bollocks in the first place.

[Soy]

M0rpHeu5, on 08 June 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

i say remove the sesmic untill they add more good module choisies.

This is attitude is exactly whats wrong as seen in the changes lately.

Guys when the **** are you going to get it through your heads, repeatedly nerfing the only good **** in this game cuz everything else is trash is a negative way to approach balance. PGI should realize this, too.

We need more good ****, not nerfing the only good **** that we have so far.

Very simple example: if PPCs are actually fun to use and at a good spot, isn't the issue moreso with other ****** *** weps that suck compared to it? Is it really an issue of the PPC being good? Extrapolate that example to macro.

Edited by Soy, 08 June 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[Khell DarkWolf]

This is why we should have had passive and active radar from the start. Not Line of Sight "Radar" if you can even call it that. :|

[Kanatta Jing]

Seismic isn't magical. It's the ability to audibly detect a gigantic walking tank stomping on the ground a few hundred meters away.

Maybe it should be less effective if the enemy is lighter/slower and maybe it should be less effective if you are bigger/faster.

Also, this is the game where Magnetometric Vision is, if nothing else, a faded yellow sticky note on a to do list at PGI.

Looking through walls and around buildings is a thing that we will be doing. Wall hacks are cannon. They are comming.