52 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

lockwoodx, on 28 January 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

Composition is the tip of the iceberg. In an ideal game we'd also be able to choose camo/colors before a match.

I have chose my Camo/Color. I wear Murphy's colors.

[Corvus Antaka]

WarHippy, on 29 January 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Ignoring the thinly veiled attack on my skill in game I'm not sure if I can take this seriously or not. You don't want to be denied your preferred game play style, but you are willing to deny others theirs?

not a thinly vieled attack. it's a statement of fact. hitting giant slow objects in other giant slow objects is significantly easier than say, 12v12 in spiders only.

[WarHippy]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 29 January 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

not a thinly vieled attack. it's a statement of fact. hitting giant slow objects in other giant slow objects is significantly easier than say, 12v12 in spiders only.

So instead of commenting on anything else I said you decide to double down on your insults towards someone else's preferred play style? Consider me unimpressed.
Feel free to let me know when you have something relevant to say in regards to the topic at hand instead of pointless drivel.

[Corvus Antaka]

WarHippy, on 29 January 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

So instead of commenting on anything else I said you decide to double down on your insults towards someone else's preferred play style? Consider me unimpressed.
Feel free to let me know when you have something relevant to say in regards to the topic at hand instead of pointless drivel.

Not making fun of a "playstyle". Just stating bluntly obvious facts.

[WarHippy]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 29 January 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Not making fun of a "playstyle". Just stating bluntly obvious facts.

What you call facts I call opinion. When you try to over simplify the dynamic between skill sets based on something like speed alone you do your argument a disservice.

[Corvus Antaka]

WarHippy, on 29 January 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

What you call facts I call opinion. When you try to over simplify the dynamic between skill sets based on something like speed alone you do your argument a disservice.

There is no opinion. hitting slow big objects is a lot easier than hitting small fast ones. I'll file this "opinion" alongside "opinions" like "god exists", despite 0 facts to support such a statement.

[Noesis]

AC/PCC ranged heavies and assaults dominate the current Meta. Other roles not being able to be as effectively applied and in no way reflects canon economy or drop compositions.

But if you want to argue about player choices when it comes to drop compositions, how about player choice when it comes to other applied roles than heavier sniping ones? Funnily not everyone wants to stand mostly still piloting an Assault whilst using a zoom module as an example. Where's the player choice with alternative roles as an aspect of equality then to be considered?

If Mechs had overheads or running costs that could be modeled into the economy with effective losses so that there was a real association with the risk of fielding more expensive tech against others then there would be a more valid case for allowing those economic factors to allow more choice. Thus allowing the freedom of attrition and production limits and associated logistics to take their course and have an impact to how this would then influence strategical factors over time and in theory then limiting these things anyhow. We don't have this model, so tonnage limits reflect this as a more simple model.

---

Otherwise my opinion based on empirical evidence in game suggests that it is much easier to aim and hit a slow atlas than a fast spider which takes more concentration and capability to do so. This might then be interpreted as needing more skill by rational application of this model.

Edited by Noesis, 30 January 2014 - 07:14 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Prosperity Park, on 28 January 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

We're not driving Men; we're driving Vehicles. There are certain situations where heavier vehicles are better than light vehicles, and so it would be very unfair to grant unlimited tonnage to a 12-man defensive team with superior terrain features, whereas the attacking team requires speed and therefore individually-smaller vehicles. The attacking team should be granted equal resources as the defending team, and vehicle tonnage is currently a resource that must be treated separately from merely a quantity of pilots.

I'm supposed to care why? Seriously Pros Why should I "give you a chance" to take from me that which I won? There is just no logic to that. You have what I want. I bring a force that I believe will win it for me. You have the knowledge of the terrain, and where to best place your forces. I am already at a disadvantage, now I am forced to bring an equal weighed force against your dug in defensive force?

Or I have to bring a less resilient force cause you bring a fast mobile force?

Because... its not fair that you didnt think about What IF?

Murphy's Law did not get together to give other teams a chance to win. It got together to form a unit that is equiped and fights according to our teams ideals. So if we decide to bring 12 Jenners to a raid, We sure as Hel don't want the Avatar Knight's (First banner I saw) telling us how we Must attack them!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 January 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[WarHippy]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 29 January 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

There is no opinion. hitting slow big objects is a lot easier than hitting small fast ones. I'll file this "opinion" alongside "opinions" like "god exists", despite 0 facts to support such a statement.

Actually, this started with your attack on me and your assertion that lighter mechs have a higher skill cap than heavier mechs when that is purely opinion. As I said when you oversimplify the differences to something like size and or speed you don't take anything else into consideration and confuse fact with opinion. Heavies and lights have a different required skill set to use to their potential, and it is going to be the opinion of the individual as to which they prefer for whatever reason. Dismissing one side over the other however is just petty.

[Khobai]

agreed. tonnage limits set a bad precedent that heavier is always better and that couldnt be further from the truth.

[Tsig]

[Joseph Mallan]

That Tsig, is a proper application of force Friendly Fire!!!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 January 2014 - 09:01 AM.

[East Indy]

Speaking of tonnage, had anyone sorted out whether limits would resemble Paul's initial, group-specific proposal; or Bryan's later overview, which sounded like a mad dash for weight while a money-clock ticked?