420 replies to this topic

[Kunae]

SpiralFace, on 04 December 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

That being said, It has been pointed out that this is very much like an IS "Jenner IIC" config. With almost entirely a missile load out.

If it didn't have that quirk, I would say its decent. Sure it doesn't play to the current metta, but I can see that changing when SRM's finally get fixed, and they do another general weapons balance pass.

May as well just take a commando 2D. It has just as many (effective) missile-points, plus a laser, and ECM.

And arms.

[NuclearPanda]

Not sure if I like the new spawn point system quite honestly. It's turned every game into pretty much a giant clusterfu** now, and steamrolls are MUCH more likely to happen. Just my two cents.

[Vas79]

Played River City twice times last night, the change in spawn points adds a new dynamic to the map with the river really acting as an obstacle between both teams. Both matches we're in the 12 man q, and both matches went the duration, with my team and the other both trying to jockey for position. All in all they were the best two matches I have played on River City in ages.

[Kyons]

Wow, you`ve done it! With the changing spawnpoints now you just can play fast mechs on the big maps or you lose. Another great job... If you want the people to play just light mechs pls say so.

[Roadbeer]

You Forumites are so damn cute.

[Onlystolen]

The Boneshaman, on 03 December 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

oxide looks like a wanna be Jenner_IIC

Yes and no. if it was a true wanna be, it would have rocket boosters strapped to its ankles with mechanics wire

[Koniving]

minefinder, on 03 December 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

i hope for a new match type soon

"Deathmatch" is coming out mid December.

.....

My thoughts exactly.

[Bront]

The new spawn points require (gasp) communication initially. They're actually similar to Crimson, where the teams are spread out a bit. On the maps I played, they were pretty fun, and it was nice to see the bases moved as well (Particularly on Alpine).

I hope this is the first step to them having maps where the points rotate a bit allowing for somewhat random drop locations.

[Pwnocchio]

I get the feeling PGI wants Lances to operate more independently with the new 'spread out' deployment implementation.

I think that's a good thing but I also suspect it will lead to more rofflestomp 12:0 matches.

I'm not sure it's a good solution to the problem of the games current detection/intel meta.

[Ngamok]

Felio, on 03 December 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

You finally make another hero light -- after threatening to not make one until spring -- and it doesn't have any jump jets either?

And it's a missile boat for some reason, with no other hardpoints of any kind?

As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't even count. You can do better.

Just pretend it's a Jenner IIC

[Pwnocchio]

NuclearPanda, on 04 December 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Not sure if I like the new spawn point system quite honestly. It's turned every game into pretty much a giant clusterfu** now, and steamrolls are MUCH more likely to happen. Just my two cents.

It forces lances to act as lances rather than "everyone battle ball up as a group of 12 mechs".

I like it in general, but I haven't played enough to figure out of teams that just burn time regrouping into the battle ball are going to win more.

[Roadbeer]

Pwnocchio, on 04 December 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

It forces lances to act as lances rather than "everyone battle ball up as a group of 12 mechs".

I like it in general, but I haven't played enough to figure out of teams that just burn time regrouping into the battle ball are going to win more.

Not necessarily, I was in several matches last night were it broke out in lance on lance and that was both refreshing and COOL.

[Grendel408]

Gotta say... I like the remodeling of the Jenner... putting an SRM6 into my Founder looks sexy And the changes of lance positions has definitely added a new strategies to the maps... players will have to start working more as a team to achieve a victory and out maneuver the enemy team

Edited by Grendel408, 04 December 2013 - 10:11 AM.

[Grendel408]

Kunae, on 04 December 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

May as well just take a commando 2D. It has just as many (effective) missile-points, plus a laser, and ECM.

And arms.

And 10 tons lighter... with less armor... I'll stick with my Jenner for more survivability... albeit I am working on the 2D currently. I'm just a fan of Light/Medium Mechs in general LOL! Workhorses

[WM Jeri]

Roadbeer, on 04 December 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Not necessarily, I was in several matches last night were it broke out in lance on lance and that was both refreshing and COOL.

And what about the unintended consequence economy wise for C-Bill Earnings. With mechs spread out and the reduction in target choice there should be on average a drop in earnings with the reduced earning potential instituted for 12 V 12's...don't they think about the ramifications of thier game changes or does everything have to be a reaction to the afterthought. Not saying it will be the case but logic would dictate that earning potentials would be lower in general by how much who knows.

All I know is I noticed it as I walked to the next cluster which more often than not was already munched on if not gone.

Edited by WM Jeri, 04 December 2013 - 10:24 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Actually, I'm reserving all consideration of economics in the game until CW is off the cocktail napkin and we see what bonuses/penalties are attributed with the ebb and flow of faction warfare.

[WM Jeri]

Roadbeer, on 04 December 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Actually, I'm reserving all consideration of economics in the game until CW is off the cocktail napkin and we see what bonuses/penalties are attributed with the ebb and flow of faction warfare.

Fine for you and I with a fat bank roll...what about new players and thier experience while they...adjust the economy. If they considered it when launching a 12V12 it should be considered when making changes to other dynamics that affect earnings. They have a hard enough PR time now without the Grindfest title being further exacerbated.

Even to the extent of a disclaimer on the Patch Notes with something like: We are aware this change may affect potential earnings per match and from a cumulative standpoint could affect some players negatively. We are monitoring this dynamic and may make adjustments as we see fit.

That is perfectly acceptable. Lets folks know they considered the impact of the change are not sure what it was but may make adjustments if the data shows a need to do so.

Edited by WM Jeri, 04 December 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[Roadbeer]

In all fairness, my earnings have actually been higher since the change.

As many of you know, I track my battle data for each drop, and looking at my average earnings, they were at 168k since the change in cbill earnings to before yesterday. I had a 174k average last night and a new all time high of 271k.

Granted, I only had 20 drops yesterday, so that's not enough to show a true statistical average, but it's a good start.

Edited by Roadbeer, 04 December 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[Ngamok]

Shade4x, on 03 December 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

I'm assuming you are asking to name games that are balanced around new and casual players (I.E. PUG players in this game)

World of warcraft
Dark ages of camelot
Warframe
Modern Warfare
Modern Warfare 2
Modern warfare 3
Quake
Quake 2
Rift
Champions Online
Planetside 2
World of Tanks
... I can go on.

The whole reason why WoW was as sucessfull as it was, was because it was accessable to the middle aged house wife mom and the 15 year old kid. Balancing your game based on elite players only works if it doesn't make the game worse for the casual players. This is common sense. Believe it or not there are ways to balance the game for both. This debate gets brought up in every game that wants to pretend it will be the next E-Sport. What people have a hard time remembering is that Halo and Starcraft had their balance done before the game was launched, and it was soley with the intention to make the game as fun to as many people possible. Their are a slew of games that tried to appeal to the elite player and disregard the casual player. None of those games have servers up.

Since some of the devs / consultants came from EQ that worked on WoW, that is the reason they made the game more accessible to casual players. If you played EQ you know about spawn camping and how hard it was to get gear weekly. Also Plane of Fear break ins, lol.

Rift is probably harder than most especially when you get into the higher level areas. Unless you have a nice high damage AoE build, you could die if over whelmed in some areas. Also, not many classes could solo major rifts through stage 5.

MW2 and MW3 definately with some of the noobiest weapons. CoD4 or MW1 still took some skill though there were exceptions.

DAoC, not really, Warframe from listening to friends playing.

Yes, if you don't cater to the casual crowd now, you'll sink unless your game has a good enough niche. I like this game over BF series or CoD series because everyone doesn't run around with 100 perks and sprinting with easy head shots.

[Ngamok]

Pwnocchio, on 04 December 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

I get the feeling PGI wants Lances to operate more independently with the new 'spread out' deployment implementation.

I think that's a good thing but I also suspect it will lead to more rofflestomp 12:0 matches.

I'm not sure it's a good solution to the problem of the games current detection/intel meta.

On the older maps, it's not that hard to get together. Only time I saw a larger distance spread was Alpine and Tourmaline.