27 replies to this topic

[Nihtgenga]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 02 July 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Where-ever canonical values work, we intend to keep them in place, but we will have to continue to reserve our right to deviate and adapt from the numbers of BT where-ever it would further benefit the balance and experience for players here. We hope you understand.

Simple (and sad) fact is, that you do deviate often not only from canonical values, but from the complete BT description and principles. And this does NOT benefit my experience, especially as someone who not is a militant "canonist", but has played TT, the MW titles and also has read BT novels. Changing numbers is one thing, changing whole principles another.

There are so many games, so many shooters, which also have robot optics. The only clear reason to prefer MWO over them is "Battletech", that should be inside - you name it a "simulation" yourself, named it a "thinking mans shooter". And this lives to a big part on tactical/strategical things, on being much more complex than an arcade shooter, and on the connection to the BT universe. The more you deviate, the more you lose the people that have the biggest potential of being long-term customers (or in commercial terms, the "cash-cows") like me. I do not know if some time the fact will make you think, that I STILL have the money in my pocket that I planned to spend on MWO over one year ago, when I expected it to get closer to the targets initially described soon and waited for it. But, it makes me think, if I really should invest even more time in waiting and hoping (I was really optimistic, when you were introducing the weapon/targeting jitter during JJ use proposed in the forums). Are you really reading those feedback threads?

Truly, the way you turned away with a shrug from really spending thoughts in trying to make the Targeting Computer and especially the Command Console something like in the battletech description (I'm explicitly naming description, not some numerical values from TT) and just claim that it is better how you changed it, doesn't make my immersion bigger and bring you closer to my wallet, as have some other things before. Just to be honest and direct, it's not meant as an insult: Sure, it's YOUR game, YOUR rules. But it's still MY experience and not yours, and MY money and not yours.

[ImperialKnight]

The command console should bring benefits to the team, since it's called the COMMAND console.

I've posted suggestions before and not going to do it again since they'll get ignored again.

Team mates need to get buffed if they fire on the same target as the mech with command console

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Nihtgenga, on 02 July 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

(stuff a couple of posts up)

In general, I agree that the Command Console's functionality is unimaginative and doesn't really align to the BT lore concept, and I'm on the fence regarding the Targeting Computers ... but I don't have a better idea for the Targeting Computer that wouldn't be a "must have this to win" piece of equipment.

The only idea that I can come up with for the Command Console is this ...
- New game mechanic ... shared sensor information (from one friendly 'mech to another) takes time to receive ... for sake of discussion, let's say it takes five seconds to get target designation and 'mech chassis, and another five seconds to get detailed target data (loadout, etc.)
- When a 'mech with a Command Console is within line of sight of the friendly scout 'mech, it's shared with all other 'mechs within line of sight of the command 'mech in half the normal time
- Having a command 'mech also enables a light "fog of war" layer to the battle grid ... you can still see the terrain, etc., but it also shows your team's current sensor coverage (line of sight)
- (Optional) In order to call air strikes or artillery strikes, you must have a Command Console Equipped, and you can use the Command Console to call strikes anywhere within your team's sensor range from the battle grid (strikes are still paid-for consumables)

So, I guess my real comment for Nihtgenga is, rather than rant and say that PGI is ruining you experience, why not explain how you think it could be better?

Edited by Kageru Ikazuchi, 02 July 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[Nihtgenga]

Well, actually I DID, like many others (see the post before yours) in the corresponding feedback-thread...

[Bigbacon]

do seismic blips show up on other players radar? (can't remember)
maybe that would be a good thing for the command console to have. that seismic information could be shared across friendlies in a 300m radius or something.

it should really be something that could share information that normally wouldn't be shareable or something like that. start getting more team based incentives into the scoring mechanics and maybe get people away from the 'INEEDTODODAMAGESNOW' mentality since that brings the most reward. (though this brings up a whole other group of 'features')

[Ironwithin]

Bigbacon, on 03 July 2014 - 05:57 AM, said:

do seismic blips show up on other players radar? (can't remember)

No, they don't.

[Nihtgenga]

As most people do not have read them obviously, a quick sum up a few ideas from the official thread (and proposal subforums) regarding other CC boni:

- Increased internal structural health on the head (due to second cockpit/pilot)
- Battlemap HUD overlay
- Possibility to mark a "preferred target" for lance/teammates (depending on if being lance- or team-commander)
- Possibility to lock more than one target ("storing" a lock) at a time
- Possibility to set waypoints, timers (e.g. to coordinate simultaneous attacks) and/or separate orders for individual lance-/teammates (depending on if being lance- or team-commander)
- Possibility to set targeting points for LRM barrage or artillery/airstrikes of teammates on the battlemap
- Possibility to also see friendlies 360° on the battlemap, and even if shutdown.
- Health percentage display of mechs on the battlemap

These are solely commando-related, are requiring some pilot skill, do not conflict with canon description or duplicate abilities of other items. So, there already WERE some ideas aside what was chosen. And I think, if implemented well, they are already worth some tonnage. If after such boni it still is really necessary for balancing (which I doubt), I'd consider other things like faster LRM lock, allowing a second module (maybe only ones with tactical background?) etc, but not earlier. What I'd NEVER consider, are boni that are already rooted in other equipment:

- Target info relaying (C3-Computer special ability)
- ECM disrupt (Guardian ECM special ability)
- Target weapon scanning (BAP special ability)
- Better Zoom (plausible for TC, not CC)

and

- Fixed AoE or team buffs (no-skill-no-brain-stuff, generally not good for a "thinking mans shooter"!)

[Grendel408]

Eric Portenelli, on 02 July 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Just keep in mind, the CC can only be mounted on IS heavy and assault mechs (rule from TT). It represents an extra pilot with data gathering gear, and smaller mechs don't have the space in their heads (apparently?).

Have you tried to eat a large pizza sitting in your lap while piloting a Spider or Firestarter?!? That's just dangerous!