Joseph Mallan, on 20 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:
You wanna play a fighting game, but you don't want to accept the consequences! That makes no sense to me.
I don't get this line of thinking. Never have.
Joseph Mallan, on 20 November 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:
You wanna play a fighting game, but you don't want to accept the consequences! That makes no sense to me.
I don't get this line of thinking. Never have.
I don't begrudge people that play to win using an easy, obvious, random or tangential tactic (one that tests skills that don't really apply to the core concept of the game) to play to win. But I DO begrudge it when they then claim that it shouldn't be corrected because removing said tactic is for the noncompetitive slaves of orthodoxy.
Dropping an artillery strike requires no exceptional skill or capability. It potentially REMOVES a layer of skill comparison by removing players on the other team without the usual skill contests. It is exceptionally unpredictable and random and can be wielded in the same degree by any mech or team member, further reducing any "skillful" use of it.
I don't think people would argue that NFL players today are just a bunch of scrubs, because the games rules have been tweaked over time to better foster competition that the fans enjoy watching, and that highlights the skills people believe are important to the game. In fact most people would argue the opposite, that NFL players today are hands down more competitive, more physically capable, and better fitted to the roles and skills that define the game.
We don't have spectating fans to please in mwo, so the equation becomes even simpler. The real measure of success if how the playerbase feels about it, and whether it enhances the core concepts of the game everyone showed up to play prior to its appearance, or whether it detracts from it.
Artillery is random
Artillery can be used effectively with a minimum level of skill
Artillery can remove a skilled player quite effectively: as people have pointed out, smoke may not be the best signifier of an attack of this nature... every other weapon in MWO has much more pronounced telltales, much more requirements on its equipment and use, and more obstacles to instantly killing you (a lot of weapons in mechwarrior simply cannot
instantly dispatch a completely pristine mech, in fact).
Because this is a team game, Artillery can also arbitrarily slant an otherwise much more balanced match in one sides favor further hampering the interactions the game is built on.
A good team player (in addition to using it to maximum effectiveness, until rules are changed) should
also be asking, "Is there a way artillery could be altered that would increase the component of skill resulting from its addition?"
That's how you get a better experience for everyone involved.
Anyone hoping to keep a such a newly added, random and relatively unskilled item in the game exactly as is, would be more "scrub-like" in my mind. A person resistant to change because they don't like the idea of the ruleset evolving.
I'm not sure why you can't understand this particular train of thought, but I do suggest you try, as I feel it is quite clearly outlined, and not particularly complex, and may lead to a deeper understanding of competition and team sports (and why rules change over time).