Operation Revival
#21
Posted 11 February 2014 - 11:16 PM
and all this healthy rivelry above, won't have any meaning in game. sigh. have been seriously thinking about the cash grab, today's vlog killed it. and threads like these just depress me now.
i'll wait until community warfare comes out. if that ever happens.
#22
Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:11 AM
We don't have very many fancy battlemechs or things like that but we get shit done.
We coo'?
#23
Posted 12 February 2014 - 04:39 AM
Mech The Dane, on 12 February 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:
We don't have very many fancy battlemechs or things like that but we get shit done.
We coo'?
First I heard of the Jarls. Eeenteresting. Learn something new every day!
#24
Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:18 PM
Mech The Dane, on 12 February 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:
We don't have very many fancy battlemechs or things like that but we get shit done.
We coo'?
Wait until you get devoured by the Ghost Bears first.
Edited by Will9761, 12 February 2014 - 01:18 PM.
#25
Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:24 PM
#26
Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:34 PM
Edited by Will9761, 12 February 2014 - 01:35 PM.
#27
Posted 12 February 2014 - 01:49 PM
GalaxyBluestar, on 11 February 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:
and all this healthy rivelry above, won't have any meaning in game. sigh. have been seriously thinking about the cash grab, today's vlog killed it. and threads like these just depress me now.
i'll wait until community warfare comes out. if that ever happens.
I ask you this... if they gave us 10 v 12, but kept trying to balance mechs so that they were just "Different"
Would you accept this? Would you accept the challenge of being undergunned? I would. However, soon I think we would begin a howling whine that would echo for a very long time, and we would end up with 12v12.
To Balance Clan Tech being stronger and more advanced is a job too hard for a Dev just trying to get their head above water, coding wise. Allowing them to balance due to making the factions' weapons almost the same is much easier. So, to simplify, they offer 12 v 12, which is really disheartening, clan lore wise.
I would do 10 to 12... With a weight balance? I would do it without, but I know that inequality would be short lived, no matter how "Honorbound" we might feel.
EDIT:
Bryan Ekman @bryanekman · 4h
@EineNeueWelt @Paul_Inouye it will most likely end up at 10 v 12 Stars vs Lances. The guys were being cautious for now.
Edited by Technoviking, 12 February 2014 - 01:56 PM.
#28
Posted 12 February 2014 - 02:46 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 12 February 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:
We do a lot of trading in the Deep Periphery and have had many interactions with the clans.
In one of those interactions they took a Jumpship of ours.. the loss of that important asset caused one of our ruling families to fall.
We also have sagas about an extremely warlike people, of whom we have equal parts respect and dread, that live even deeper in the Deep Periphery. However the canon never makes it clear if that is the Clans or someone else.
(I think the Nova Cats had visions of an even greater enemy to all humanity lurking in the nether reaches of the Deep Periphery)
Will9761, on 12 February 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:
Well, yeah. But if ya'll are gettin' together have a barbecue or fancy meetings or what not. Just thought it would be the neighborly thing to do, to invite us and all, that is.
Edited by Mech The Dane, 12 February 2014 - 02:59 PM.
#29
Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:52 PM
#30
Posted 12 February 2014 - 05:53 PM
Technoviking, on 12 February 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:
Would you accept this? Would you accept the challenge of being undergunned? I would. However, soon I think we would begin a howling whine that would echo for a very long time, and we would end up with 12v12.
To Balance Clan Tech being stronger and more advanced is a job too hard for a Dev just trying to get their head above water, coding wise. Allowing them to balance due to making the factions' weapons almost the same is much easier. So, to simplify, they offer 12 v 12, which is really disheartening, clan lore wise.
I would do 10 to 12... With a weight balance? I would do it without, but I know that inequality would be short lived, no matter how "Honorbound" we might feel.
EDIT:
Bryan Ekman @bryanekman · 4h
@EineNeueWelt @Paul_Inouye it will most likely end up at 10 v 12 Stars vs Lances. The guys were being cautious for now.
of course i'd go in undermaned and under gunned, a new experience would bring me back to this game, i'm totally bored with the random drops and the lack of reason to fight other than mech collecting. it would buy time to get CW done. i'd play my sig mech one day then play as clan the next and the game would be interesting. also the tactics presented with facing an entirely different team construction is very enticing, where as playing against innersphere 2.0 pretty much cements what we already have and the novelty of longer beam durations and different looks etc would soon wear off. it's certainly not worth the money.
and that ekman tweet, i can't hear it too well over the sound of drones above my mech.
i'll let you guys get back on topic now. if things look better close to june... i'll be back!
Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 12 February 2014 - 05:54 PM.
#31
Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:14 AM
Technoviking, on 12 February 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:
Would you accept this? Would you accept the challenge of being undergunned? I would. However, soon I think we would begin a howling whine that would echo for a very long time, and we would end up with 12v12.
To Balance Clan Tech being stronger and more advanced is a job too hard for a Dev just trying to get their head above water, coding wise. Allowing them to balance due to making the factions' weapons almost the same is much easier. So, to simplify, they offer 12 v 12, which is really disheartening, clan lore wise.
I would do 10 to 12... With a weight balance? I would do it without, but I know that inequality would be short lived, no matter how "Honorbound" we might feel.
I am totally for the lore. the Clans DO fight undergunned and undermanned. They bid away units to not waste resources and to achieve higher honor. This is the way of the Clans.
#32
Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:31 AM
CyclonerM, on 13 February 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:
I am totally for the lore. the Clans DO fight undergunned and undermanned. They bid away units to not waste resources and to achieve higher honor. This is the way of the Clans.
The flip side is, in a game where 2/3 game modes require a capture mechanic, and where being even 1 mech down, let alone 2, is a tremendous disadvantage in said game modes.... How does one balance for 10v12? It is comparatively easy to balance the combat for 10v12. My hitch is the capture mechanics. It would be easier (and approximate the self imposed disadvantage) to incorporate a total team tonnage disadvantage to the Clan team as compared to the IS team, which as I understand it is the current plan. That way you do not need to rebalance two entire game modes on top of trying to sort out how to make 10v12 a satisfying game to play for both teams without it constantly devolving into a one sided affair.
Please note, I am not saying it is impossible. However, given how limited PGIs resources seem to be, taking this route really does seem like the best way to go. A weight disadvantage approximates the Clan desire to bid lower than the enemy just as well as dropping 2 less does and, perhaps, more so as you could just have more assault mechs and have higher total tonnage with less people. What this leaves is the lore-ness of the 5 point system. I would hate to see it go, but if it balances the game..... I rather a fun game than a lorebound game, personally.
Edited by Pariah Devalis, 13 February 2014 - 05:32 AM.
#33
Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:49 AM
Pariah Devalis, on 13 February 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:
The flip side is, in a game where 2/3 game modes require a capture mechanic, and where being even 1 mech down, let alone 2, is a tremendous disadvantage in said game modes.... How does one balance for 10v12? It is comparatively easy to balance the combat for 10v12. My hitch is the capture mechanics. It would be easier (and approximate the self imposed disadvantage) to incorporate a total team tonnage disadvantage to the Clan team as compared to the IS team, which as I understand it is the current plan. That way you do not need to rebalance two entire game modes on top of trying to sort out how to make 10v12 a satisfying game to play for both teams without it constantly devolving into a one sided affair.
Please note, I am not saying it is impossible. However, given how limited PGIs resources seem to be, taking this route really does seem like the best way to go. A weight disadvantage approximates the Clan desire to bid lower than the enemy just as well as dropping 2 less does and, perhaps, more so as you could just have more assault mechs and have higher total tonnage with less people. What this leaves is the lore-ness of the 5 point system. I would hate to see it go, but if it balances the game..... I rather a fun game than a lorebound game, personally.
Being two 'Mechs short already gives a tonnage disadvantage compared to the IS team.
Well the point is i strongly believe a "lorebound" game could well be fun (at least for those who can appreciate it ).
Some said that people will adapt to lights not being fast harassers, so people will adapt to almost everything else. After all, if the first 2 lights are slow, the other 'Mechs are going to be faster than their Inner Sphere counterparts.
I am going to start a thread called "your ideal MechWarrior game" someday. There you will see lot of dreams.
#34
Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:21 PM
I can attest that the 2 medium lasers, SRM4 and SRM6 build a Firemoth prime has stock is damn deadly. More so when SRMs get fixed
#35
Posted 13 February 2014 - 12:31 PM
#37
Posted 15 February 2014 - 09:50 PM
any word on the ts?
#38
Posted 15 February 2014 - 11:12 PM
Pariah Devalis, on 13 February 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:
The flip side is, in a game where 2/3 game modes require a capture mechanic, and where being even 1 mech down, let alone 2, is a tremendous disadvantage in said game modes.... How does one balance for 10v12? It is comparatively easy to balance the combat for 10v12. My hitch is the capture mechanics. It would be easier (and approximate the self imposed disadvantage) to incorporate a total team tonnage disadvantage to the Clan team as compared to the IS team, which as I understand it is the current plan. That way you do not need to rebalance two entire game modes on top of trying to sort out how to make 10v12 a satisfying game to play for both teams without it constantly devolving into a one sided affair.
Please note, I am not saying it is impossible. However, given how limited PGIs resources seem to be, taking this route really does seem like the best way to go. A weight disadvantage approximates the Clan desire to bid lower than the enemy just as well as dropping 2 less does and, perhaps, more so as you could just have more assault mechs and have higher total tonnage with less people. What this leaves is the lore-ness of the 5 point system. I would hate to see it go, but if it balances the game..... I rather a fun game than a lorebound game, personally.
well it's hotly disputed that the capture mechanic in assault is hampered by turrets. so i wouldn't worry about the capturing being a 2 man down team hinderance.
now conquest... that would be epic! clan teams would be forced to attack positions or dare i say INVADE! stars would split up. all chat would be filled with bidding "i will occuppy the theta zone myself!" or dishonourable teams would struggle deathblobing to attack enough positions in time. where as the IS team can choose to attack like in other modes or rush the caps evading clanners! {squee!} the odd numbers the kill rate effeciancies being a movement away from overwhelmed death to dominating leveling of the two sides... i see many clan mediums and heavys finding service here. boy that would breath life back into the game.
Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 15 February 2014 - 11:14 PM.
#39
Posted 23 March 2014 - 01:56 PM
#40
Posted 23 March 2014 - 05:21 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users