166 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Tycho von Gagern, on 12 March 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:

You're right that the AC20 should be scary. You're right that the big mechs that carry scary AC20s should be scary. What you sort of breeze past is they're not scary. Not because they've been over-nerfed, but because everyone and their mother is running a big, scary mech that can field a big, scary AC20 (or it's 2xPPC/AC5 equivalent). You remember a novel where the lights were in awe of two assaults going at it? I remember that happening in a game. It lasted about 12 seconds, at which point the other 14 assaults in the match came over the hill and then the two were just a couple of faces in the crowd, lost amid the usual PPC/big-ballistic boredom.

I'm of a mind that an overabundance of big mechs have totally diminished the game. We can't have weapons that really outshine others, not because too many people want them to be "equal," as you suggest, but because as soon as a weapon is marked as being "good," The big-mech drivers (to be read as "just about everyone") cram as many as they can into their chassis and suck the fun out of the game for the few who were happy to run with just one. I can't wait to see how the game changes with these class limits that are supposed to be coming soon. I still hold out hope for tonnage limits.

In the meantime, every match is a 70+ ton circle jerk, with most being run by steering-wheel clowns that no IS house -let alone a clan- would let near one of their assault-class mechs. They crutch on tonnage, and then have the nerve to come to the forums to cry and winge about anything that might be a drawback to running the biggest, most armored, most armed mechs available: maps are too big, weapons are too hot, arty/air is OP, capping is OP, lights are OP, on and on and on.

I've pretty much lost all respect for anyone running over 65 tons in this game.

I wasnt addressing mechs at all. I was addressing a weapon system. My opinion was based entirely off what I feel the weapon itself should represent. What you are experiencing is an overt amount of no weight/class restriction.

[Bagheera]

Varent, on 11 March 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

The changes of me listening to you are about 1 in 10. I can only speak for myself and other gamers I play with, but no ones going to listen to you that I know of. As I said, moot point. Gamers tend to do there own thing, they are very independent in my experiences. Which leads back to getting on a TS with some people you know and trust to do stuff like that. This isn't an uncommon thing. It exists in every shooter... people get around it ... by getting on a ts.... I don't see why people expect something different of MWO. No other shooter has VOIP that's actually used for tactics... its always just used for trolling.

Actually, and this is conditional I'll admit, but if we are talking about "quick commands" from a menu like the original Planetside chat macros (PS1, not 2) then yeah, I just might pay attention to those. Even with TS they were useful. It really depends on the person using them as to their usefulness. Again, I'm not speaking of in-game VOIP - I'm speaking of a quick-menu command and waypoint system. Honestly, it is inexcusable for a modern unit combat game to be without one.

Just because some people won't use a tool properly does not mean we should be denied the tool.

[Varent]

Bagheera, on 12 March 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

Actually, and this is conditional I'll admit, but if we are talking about "quick commands" from a menu like the original Planetside chat macros (PS1, not 2) then yeah, I just might pay attention to those. Even with TS they were useful. It really depends on the person using them as to their usefulness. Again, I'm not speaking of in-game VOIP - I'm speaking of a quick-menu command and waypoint system. Honestly, it is inexcusable for a modern unit combat game to be without one.

Just because some people won't use a tool properly does not mean we should be denied the tool.

Because it would be a hinderance in battle? Lets evaluate this.

I log into a game. Im already in teamspeak with 3 friends. We are in a lance together. I start giving orders and calling out targets and explaining to them how we are going to flank. I then become pinged in the corner of my screen by another group telling me to do something different, or telling me to do the exact same thing im already doing. Chances of me listening at all are basically null and void either way since Im either already focused on what im doing or not just annoyed and distracted by you telling me to do it again.

Now lets change the scenario. Im in a solo match. Im an experienced player. I know how to play this game. I am going to setup in an ambush position, or move behind the assaults for cover, or setup on a good sniping point or lrm covered spot. Or if im a scout im going to rush ahead and use cover to get eyes on them and look for a base or capture point. You tell me to do something differenet or something im already doing. Again chances are im going to ignore you. I dont know you, your skill level, or anything about you. I am going to trust in my own skills and now your distracting me. Thats a bad thing.

Now lets change this even again. Im a newer player. I barely understand this game. (why im not in a guild or seeking help god knows why). Im told to do something... im probly not going to listen to you because im simply wanting to explore the game or I simply dont know you, why would I listen to some ping telling me to do something in an online F2P game? Change this again and now someones telling you to do something over full voice chat. From experience in CoD... this never works. Im still going to do what i want to do because... hey its a game and I want to have fun, not follow orders.

The problem your not understanding is people dont play games to follow orders. They play games to have fun. Wich usually means not listening to anyone in any way, especially not someone you just met and know nothing about. Thats why I dont see a point in it. I have never.... ever... EVER.... seen in game VOIP used for anything but people trolling. Where as I have consistently seen TS used for tactics all the time. So MWO will be different... because...?

Lets evaluate this further from a gaming developers perspective. I am going to spend money and time and effort... for a tool... that people already have... (and is better) to make something that the vast majority of the population wont use.... and many of the population will use to annoy others.

And this is a good thing for them to focus on... because...?

Sorry I know im derailing the conversation here and I know this is just my opinion. But of all the things mwo could be focused on this seems just silly. I could not imagine any gamer gaining more benefit from this then from using TS.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

Now lets change this even again. Im a newer player. I barely understand this game. (why im not in a guild or seeking help god knows why). Im told to do something... im probly not going to listen to you because im simply wanting to explore the game or I simply dont know you, why would I listen to some ping telling me to do something in an online F2P game? Change this again and now someones telling you to do something over full voice chat. From experience in CoD... this never works. Im still going to do what i want to do because... hey its a game and I want to have fun, not follow order

Which brings up another failing - there is no time to just "explore" the game. You get into a fight and it is against other players. A tutorial or a basic PvE mission something that can be fun, and teaches you stuff, is what you need.
That tutorial could also explain why these markers are important to follow (for example, it could directly use them in the tutorial, basically pretending that your AI teacher uses the same command a real person would use).

Quote

I log into a game. Im already in teamspeak with 3 friends. We are in a lance together. I start giving orders and calling out targets and explaining to them how we are going to flank. I then become pinged in the corner of my screen by another group telling me to do something different, or telling me to do the exact same thing im already doing. Chances of me listening at all are basically null and void either way since Im either already focused on what im doing or not just annoyed and distracted by you telling me to do it again.

So you're on a 4 man team and don't want to coordinate with the other 8 players, and also want no ability what so ever to do so?

[Varent]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 March 2014 - 07:54 AM, said:

Which brings up another failing - there is no time to just "explore" the game. You get into a fight and it is against other players. A tutorial or a basic PvE mission something that can be fun, and teaches you stuff, is what you need.
That tutorial could also explain why these markers are important to follow (for example, it could directly use them in the tutorial, basically pretending that your AI teacher uses the same command a real person would use).


So you're on a 4 man team and don't want to coordinate with the other 8 players, and also want no ability what so ever to do so?

1) Im sorry, I dont trust the vast majority of online gamers not to get me killed. Id rather rely on myself. Also have you considered this would be a way to send people to there death, or to just use others as cannon fodder? (I know alot of people that would do this.

2) I dont know or trust the others in the team. Im going to rely on myself and my lance. The other team is doing the same.

[Bagheera]

You missed a scenario:

I'm not new to the game, or the franchise for that matter. I understand how to play, how to design and drive my mechs, and despite the handicap of "pugging" maintain positive ratios where it counts.

But I can only really sit down and play 3 or 4 matches at a time, at most. For me, logging into TS and finding people, only to inconvenience them 3 matches later by leaving is rude, so I tend not to do so.

I should be denied a quick and easy way to communicate with the people on my team, because I do not have time and therefore am trying to be courteous to the gamers on TS by not wasting theirs?

Edited by Bagheera, 12 March 2014 - 08:06 AM.

[Varent]

Bagheera, on 12 March 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

You missed a scenario:

I'm not new to the game, or the franchise for that matter. I understand how to play, how to design and drive my mechs, and maintain both K/D and W/L records >1.

But I can only really sit down and play 3 or 4 matches at a time, at most. For me, logging into TS and finding people, only to inconvenience them 3 matches later by leaving is rude, so I tend not to do so.

I should be denied a quick and easy way to communicate with the people on my team, because I do not have time and therefore am trying to be courteous to the gamers on TS by not wasting theirs?

And your hoping absolute strangers will be more then willing to give you a tactical experience?

Because I know I walk down the street and actively ask people for 10 minutes of there time and they just bend over backwards to lend a hand.....

Your going to have better luck on team speak for that.... its... honestly a no brainer...

Edited by Varent, 12 March 2014 - 08:07 AM.

[Bagheera]

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

And your hoping absolute strangers will be more then willing to give you a tactical experience?

Because I know I walk down the street and actively ask people for 10 minutes of there time and they just bend over backwards to lend a hand.....

That's not really relevant to me; I can only control my own actions. Getting bent about the actions of others (in a video game) is a waste of my time. I can either play the game on my terms or I can go play something else, but I don't see the need to put out people who want to invest more time by showing up, then immediately leaving their lance, just because my alternative is to put my faith in strangers. Maybe they'll suck, maybe they'll rock (it happens), but ultimately I'd rather take the chance than waste the time of players who've taken the time to find a lance and are in it for the duration.

I fail to see why, in 2014, a unit based combat game fails to give me the tools that were available in 2004.

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Your going to have better luck on team speak for that.... its... honestly a no brainer...

I'm not making that argument at all. The question of TS being a superior choice is not the issue for me, the issue, put plainly, is that I don't want to come across like a **** to the people on TS. And, imo, showing up, playing a couple matches, then bailing is a **** move. If I could sit down for longer periods of time, maybe, but 99% of the time a longer period for gaming is not available to me.



(also, I had to edit that previous post because it sounded to e-peeny for my taste. I'm not even remotely close to a "good" player, but I hold my own and my - near as makes no difference - exclusively "pugging" stats kinda reflect that)

Edited by Bagheera, 12 March 2014 - 08:17 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

Because I know I walk down the street and actively ask people for 10 minutes of there time and they just bend over backwards to lend a hand.....

It's called charisma. I can chat with anyone and eat up tons of time. And a by-product of that is they want to help me.

My wife utterly hates it.

But I get deals, help and meet new people all the time because of it.

It also keeps me employed constantly because interviews are easy for me.

[Almond Brown]

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Do the math. An AC/20 outdamages an AC/10 at any range up to about 580m:

stuff

It boggles the mind...

Wait, what? That... just makes no sense. No sense at all.

So when your running about the battlefield you STOP and do the math? LOL!

When you don't give anything proper thought, nothing makes sense. If they cut the range of Ballistics in half, they will have to keep the drop off the same out to new max. range. How many shots do you think went down range at the current Max range, fired "just because" it could be done. If you force the gun into a tighter area of affect, so to speak, less shots will be of the kind "just because".

In effect you will increase the amount of ammo by reducing the "just because" waste that all the ballistics now see due to their available extreme ranges. An AC2 is basically a waste of ammo past 1000m (due to miss chances and spray and pray hopes, but you see players firing it, way out there, all the time, "just because" they can.

Yes I know those Leet players don't ever do shit like that. But we can't be Leet right...

P.S. You boggle quite easily it seems.

Edited by Almond Brown, 12 March 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Quote

Remember being in command of a lance of NPC's?

LOL! Good one. One MAJOR difference. The NPC's had to listen to your Commands. PUG's... LOL!

If you can't type it succinct enough, clicking keys that allow you to be verbose ain't going make a lick of difference. If anything, you made get told to "STFU" more often...

[C E Dwyer]

Great read.

Yes you right, to a degree, about the people that play, but i wouldn't place them in TT, BT, or MW mentality, but those that want to encompass all the universe, with all its faults and problems, and those that want a twitcher pin point game that looks like the MW universe.

In either case, two things stopped this game from being anything but a niche game the hardcore fans endure as the only option.

customisation is far to open, it allows builds that cause balance issues from the very first day, triple guass phracts, sextruple ppc stalkers, 45lurm highlanders, BT universe all ready stretched engineering to the far distance, WMO has taken it to the incredulous.

In the universe a light mech with a ppc was an exception it gives the Panther a reason to be, sacrificing speed for that extra wollop, but its gone and dead, and pointless when even a locust can mount one.

That said it would have been far less of a problem had there been a convergence system or even a cone which grew smaller as piloting skill became higher (reason to grind GXP for pilots as well) that got screamed down by twitchers as heretical, and yet the ember with its cone fire quad MG's is considered as far to OP with a weapon that people said was utterly pointless 6 months ago.

New mechs stopped having any point in being created just before pheonix mechs were introduced, other than for look and some of the new creations are extremely poor, founders set, dragon, comando, hunchback, cent and more up to the blackjack I think few on pure look would mark them lower than an 8 out of 10, ( the founders set made my jaw drop in a silent wow, and is the reason i'm here, if I was presented with the games battlemaster and banshee i'd have gone wow is that seriously the best they can do, and leave as I did after kick starting Mech warrior tactics, yet were to believe its the same people that made the founders packs mechs) some of the new don't make a 5 in my book, its as if even the mech makers have stopped believing.

We all have to realise we're not going to get what we liked about TT, BT or MW, as we see it in our minds eye, and have to deside if we're going to carry on supporting or if not supporting, playing this game or fade away, personally i've been here this long, and spent a lot of money supporting it, so my thought is play out the year, hope CW arrives, or not and if it does actually works well, october for me is a point of not return, either i'm playing this game until it stops or I die or 2015 i'm doing something else.

Almond Brown, on 12 March 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

LOL! Good one. One MAJOR difference. The NPC's had to listen to your Commands. PUG's... LOL!

If you can't type it succinct enough, clicking keys that allow you to be verbose ain't going make a lick of difference. If anything, you made get told to "STFU" more often...

I built a random system for orders for TT based in personal like or dislike of officers in mercanary factions so in my game they didn't allways do what I wanted, but then I quite liked playing orcs in warhammer

[Varent]

Bagheera, on 12 March 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

That's not really relevant to me; I can only control my own actions. Getting bent about the actions of others (in a video game) is a waste of my time. I can either play the game on my terms or I can go play something else, but I don't see the need to put out people who want to invest more time by showing up, then immediately leaving their lance, just because my alternative is to put my faith in strangers. Maybe they'll suck, maybe they'll rock (it happens), but ultimately I'd rather take the chance than waste the time of players who've taken the time to find a lance and are in it for the duration.

I fail to see why, in 2014, a unit based combat game fails to give me the tools that were available in 2004.



I'm not making that argument at all. The question of TS being a superior choice is not the issue for me, the issue, put plainly, is that I don't want to come across like a **** to the people on TS. And, imo, showing up, playing a couple matches, then bailing is a **** move. If I could sit down for longer periods of time, maybe, but 99% of the time a longer period for gaming is not available to me.



(also, I had to edit that previous post because it sounded to e-peeny for my taste. I'm not even remotely close to a "good" player, but I hold my own and my - near as makes no difference - exclusively "pugging" stats kinda reflect that)

so, you already have admitted that TS is a better option. Its free, readily available, with people you know on it and can (hopefully) understand, releast to, and know something about enough to agree with and play a game with.

and you want PGI to come out with something (thats not used as intended in any shooter), when there is already a better option available?

If nothing else that was the smartest thing pgi did, not waisting time on something so utterly and completely pointless. I cant begin to explain the headaches of CoD and muting everyone the moment I got in game just because I didnt want to have to deal with the nonsense.

[L Y N X]

TL:DR version....

You can please some of the people all of the time,
You can please all of the people some of the time,
But you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

PGI say what you will do and then DO THAT, and you will be successful.

[Varent]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 12 March 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

It's called charisma. I can chat with anyone and eat up tons of time. And a by-product of that is they want to help me.

My wife utterly hates it.

But I get deals, help and meet new people all the time because of it.

It also keeps me employed constantly because interviews are easy for me.

I like you nic. I think I would get along with you.

If we were in a game and just starting (without knowing you) I would mute you. Im sorry... but I would, would be the first thing I did in fact. Charisma and having the gift of gab means having time to talk to someone. In a shooter trying to 'talk someone into' following your orders in a game that lasts on average 5-7 minutes... I mean come now...

[stjobe]

Almond Brown, on 12 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

So when your running about the battlefield you STOP and do the math? LOL!

Well, yes; obviously that was exactly what I meant.

The maths I showed you, you know those weird and unfamiliar non-letters you so handily selected and deleted and replaced with the eloquent "stuff" when you quoted my post, that could have shown you that the range of the ACs make the AC/20 better than the AC/10 not just within the optimal range of the AC/20, but within the optimal range of the AC/10 as well. There is no range under 580m where an AC/10 does more damage than an AC/20.

Now if AC max range was 2x effective range (like lasers) instead of 3x, the AC/20 would do zero damage after 540m, and 10 damage at 405m; the AC/10 would begin to outdamage the AC/20 at 410m instead of at 580m.

If AC max range was 1x effective range (like missiles) instead of 3x, the AC/20 would do zero damage after 270m, and the AC/10 would outdamage the AC/20 from 270 to 450m (its max range at that range multiplier).

Almond Brown, on 12 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

When you don't give anything proper thought, nothing makes sense. If they cut the range of Ballistics in half, they will have to keep the drop off the same out to new max. range. How many shots do you think went down range at the current Max range, fired "just because" it could be done. If you force the gun into a tighter area of affect, so to speak, less shots will be of the kind "just because".

In effect you will increase the amount of ammo by reducing the "just because" waste that all the ballistics now see due to their available extreme ranges. An AC2 is basically a waste of ammo past 1000m (due to miss chances and spray and pray hopes, but you see players firing it, way out there, all the time, "just because" they can.

Easily resolved by reducing the amount of ammo; our current ammo loads are increased it 50% over TT values for most weapons.

Almond Brown, on 12 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

P.S. You boggle quite easily it seems.

There's a lot to boggle over on these forums.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 12 March 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

LOL! Good one. One MAJOR difference. The NPC's had to listen to your Commands. PUG's... LOL!

If you can't type it succinct enough, clicking keys that allow you to be verbose ain't going make a lick of difference. If anything, you made get told to "STFU" more often...

yeup.

[Navy Sixes]

Varent,
You said...

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

I recall a specific book where light mechs stood in awe of two assaults duking it out simply because they knew whoever one the combat would basically decide the overall battle because of the fact that they simply would not be able to handle an assault mech by themselves due to the weapons they carried. This in essence is what weight restrictions do. They give value to the weapons based off of weight and limit how many of them can be on the field of combat.

...and then I agreed, because I thought the above illustrated a clear understanding that there really can be no "balance" in this game while everyone is free to run the biggest mechs available, and therefore free to pack in as many of the biggest weapons available. I understood the above to mean you understood that mech tonnage directly applies to weapon balance. I don't know any other way to interpret it. So I expressed my agreement, then went on to express my own personal disgust with the unlimited tonnage problem when I wrote...

"We can't have weapons that really outshine others, not because too many people want them to be "equal," as you suggest, but because as soon as a weapon is marked as being "good," The big-mech drivers (to be read as "just about everyone") cram as many as they can into their chassis and suck the fun out of the game for the few who were happy to run with just one."

But then you responded...

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

I wasnt addressing mechs at all.

I often wonder if people actually read other people's posts before they comment on them. This exchange has me wondering not only if you read my post before you responded, but also if you actually read your own.

Cheers,
Tycho von Gagern

[Varent]

7ynx, on 12 March 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

TL:DR version....

You can please some of the people all of the time,
You can please all of the people some of the time,
But you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

PGI say what you will do and then DO THAT, and you will be successful.

mmmhmm. Actually why ive at least been happy with them lately. They are finally meeting there time tables. Just hope they keep on this track....

Tycho von Gagern, on 12 March 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Varent,
You said...

...and then I agreed, because I thought the above illustrated a clear understanding that there really can be no "balance" in this game while everyone is free to run the biggest mechs available, and therefore free to pack in as many of the biggest weapons available. I understood the above to mean you understood that mech tonnage directly applies to weapon balance. I don't know any other way to interpret it. So I expressed my agreement, then went on to express my own personal disgust with the unlimited tonnage problem when I wrote...

"We can't have weapons that really outshine others, not because too many people want them to be "equal," as you suggest, but because as soon as a weapon is marked as being "good," The big-mech drivers (to be read as "just about everyone") cram as many as they can into their chassis and suck the fun out of the game for the few who were happy to run with just one."

But then you responded...

I often wonder if people actually read other people's posts before they comment on them. This exchange has me wondering not only if you read my post before you responded, but also if you actually read your own.

Cheers,
Tycho von Gagern

I was wondering if you read my post entirely too. They were two very different points. Addressing assault mechs and then addressing weapon systems. They are two different things. Also one was pointing out the feel of what I got from reading a BT book. The other was addressing the concept of some weapon systems being scary in general for the same reasons.

They are two valid seperate things. Keep in mind some mechs in general are also differentiated by there ability to carry balistics in general as well as what size of balisticss.

Edited by Varent, 12 March 2014 - 09:48 AM.

[Bagheera]

Varent, on 12 March 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

so, you already have admitted that TS is a better option. Its free, readily available, with people you know on it and can (hopefully) understand, releast to, and know something about enough to agree with and play a game with.

....

Sadly, I am well past the point of wanting PGI to do anything really, on any serious level.

If this isn't going to be the sort of game where I can sit down after a long day and shoot robots for a match or three without either wasting other people's time with my short window of opportunity or not having some sort of quick-command/waypoint system in play, then so be it.

Tell me, how would you feel if some random joined your TS channel and then bailed after a couple of matches, leaving your lance short?

Maybe I am going too far in assuming that would annoy people; I am only going on past experience Regardless, you still have not really addressed that specific scenario. Don't think I've never used TS and don't think my not using all the time it has anything to do with anything other than what I have stated. Similarly, I don't really bother with guilds/clans/whatever in MW:O because I do the type of work that can take me either away from the game or away from home completely for (sometimes) a couple months at a time. Again, I don't see the need to waste the time of players who can commit more to the game than I, but I don't see why my game experience should suffer for it needlessly.

Edited by Bagheera, 12 March 2014 - 11:00 AM.