190 replies to this topic

[GRAND MASTER GORE]

FINALLY A CRYSIS MAP!

[Odanan]

InnerSphereNews, on 04 November 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

[great stuff]

The quirk system = nice!
The King Crab = most impressive.
The new map = gorgeous.
What Russ and Paul are saying = can't find a flaw.

PGI, we were dating for 2 years. Now I want to marry you.


PS: can you release that amazing KC concept art in HD?

[Ripper X]

Is there an incentive for going with the longer duration contracts?

[Felio]

Felio, on 04 November 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

You also say you chose roles by looking at hard points and chose weapons by looking at what separated it from other variants, but that isn't always true, either.

I haven't examined all of them in detail, but one example that jumped out is the SHD-2H. It has 3 ballistic hardpoints and pays a price for them -- it has fewer energy and missile hardpoints. They suggest three MGs (brawling) or 3 AC/2 (support), yet you quirk it for AC/5, which it can realistically only bring one of because it is 55 tons.

I'd like to add that this is basically an admission that machine guns are not competitive; that you're better off giving up hardpoints of all three types in exchange for an AC/5, rather than taking machine guns.

OK, so the quirks we have don't work so great with MGs, but you could have given it missile or laser quirks to complement unquirked machine guns. And no, it would not be competitive to take an AC/5 with two MGs, because they don't seem to do any noticeable effect until you have four.

I also notice there aren't any flamer quirks, even though unlike MGs, they would have benefited just fine from existing quirks for heat reduction and range extension. So we know the aren't competitive, either, and it's been several months since Russ said on Twitter they'd get some tuning soon.

[DAYLEET]

I like everything i see and if you tone down the fog i will love it. Its a forest colony day time, colors a nice, being able to see would be even nicer.

It's kind of annoying that the min/max autistic players who would rather suck the fun out of a game than just play it are deciding the qwirks. Arent you just buffing them further and making them right by saying OK this is what you think is best and we will make it better and increasing the disparity between loadout?

Edited by DAYLEET, 04 November 2014 - 01:57 PM.

[Cimarb]

Wish I had brought my earphones to work today...only got to listen to half of it at lunch!

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Appreciate you clarifying that you selected quirks based on the advice of the "Competitive players", or threw them under the bus as the case may be. Just out of curiosity, what percent of players does this "Star Chamber" represent? You refused to budge on issues were 51% majority wanted change, and yet, maybe 1% of of the playerbase is going to determine how everyone should play a chassis? And do you think it was a wise decision for these quirks to chase the current meta-game rather than stay true to their Battletech lore? What happens when the metagame changes, are going to perform a quirk pass on mechs all the mechs you assigned counter-intuitive quirks to?

I was also glad to see you highlight the innate problems created by hardpoint inflation, and problems generated by the design logic you applied to mechs. The base logic you applied to hardpoint allocation is the larger the weapon (more tonnage), the more hardpoint a chassis receives in that location. This means a mech designed to have a singular large weapon, was given multiple hard points, while a chassis with a single small weapon was given a single hardpoint. Hopefully you see how that doesn't make any sense. All of a sudden chassis that you wanted to use a single large weapon are instead taking multiple smaller caliber weapons, and those with a single hardpoint for a smaller weapon are forced to take the singular largest weapon available. This is what happened to the Dragon, Hunchback, and others.

I have one last comment. It seems like a small number of favorite chassis received very specific upgrades to push them to T1 or T2 (assuming you play to last months metagame), while others (like the Trebuchet 5N), appeared to be overlooked completely. Would you be willing to address some of the other chassis/quirk decisions, like you did with the Centurion?

[Morang]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 04 November 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

I was also glad to see you highlight the innate problems created by hardpoint inflation, and problems generated by the design logic you applied to mechs. The base logic you applied to hardpoint allocation is the larger the weapon (more tonnage), the more hardpoint a chassis receives in that location. This means a mech designed to have a singular large weapon, was given multiple hard points, while a chassis with a single small weapon was given a single hardpoint. Hopefully you see how that doesn't make any sense. All of a sudden chassis that you wanted to use a single large weapon are instead taking multiple smaller caliber weapons, and those with a single hardpoint for a smaller weapon are forced to take the singular largest weapon available. This is what happened to the Dragon, Hunchback, and others.

Yep, exactly. QKD-5K - the only Quickdraw getting PPC quirks while it can readily boat lasers better than other Quickdraws but can't make good use of all its hardpoints when carrying twin PPCs.

[Cimarb]

"You can satisfy some people all the time, or all people some of the time, but you cannot satisfy all people all the time."

[Heffay]

Felio, on 04 November 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

I'd like to add that this is basically an admission that machine guns are not competitive; that you're better off giving up hardpoints of all three types in exchange for an AC/5, rather than taking machine guns.

You feel that way about the MGs on an Ember too? they are better off bringing an AC5?

[Madcap72]

I for one like the looks of the quirks going through the PDF.


I also like fact that they were based in part off competative play, because Battle Tech is a competative game. The entire purpose is to play against people and determine who is more skillful, not just mindlessly grind away trying to wrangle up more mechs like some boring version of robot pokemon.


Think back to games like Red Alert Two... what made that game fun? Rediculously overpowered units. Level playing fields suck. Catering to the lowest denominator sucks. Rewarding skill and people who take the time to determine how to maximze weapons effects is awesome.

[CgMass]

That new map looks awesome!

[That Guy]

hey, some of you twitter guys, pester Russ on some more details about the Deckles, and if those UI guys have been freed enough to work on it?

[Odanan]

Cimarb, on 04 November 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

"You can satisfy some people all the time, or all people some of the time, but you cannot satisfy all people all the time."

You can't satisfy all people not a single time.

[White Bear 84]

Can we get the King Crab preview on loop so we can sit and watch it all day.. ..oh my it is looking gorgeous!!

[Rufus Ingram]

New map looks great! Jumpers playground.

[Livewyr]

Dat map...

[Dauphni]

That swamp map looks gorgeous. I haven't even played it and I already want three more like that!

[Lily from animove]

swamp map looks interetsing, but seriously, I feel some trees and those bones are a bit overscaled if you think about how big a mech actually is. It feels more like you would have human size, but with our emch sizes in comparison it seems to be somehow off the scale.

I also hope its not too performance heavy for poeple with lower rigs, otherwise we get a lot complaints when its out.

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 November 2014 - 03:11 PM.

[Livewyr]

Lily from animove, on 04 November 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

I also hope its not too performance heavy for poeple with lower rigs, otherwise we get a lot complaints when its out.

Precisely my fear- so I went ahead and upgraded..considerably. lol