373 replies to this topic

[QuantumButler]

InspectorG, on 09 November 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

As far as BT rules, didnt you have to roll some dice ANY time your mech got hit in the head? Or am i remembering wrong?

Not to mention HEAT effects pertaining to the pilot.

I personally dont mind the off change of a arty headshot. KEEPS YOU ON YOUR TOES AND YOU SHOULD NEVER FEEL SAFE on a battlefield.
War is hell, they say.

Games, however, should be fun, not hell.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 09 November 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

I agree with pretty much everything you said...except this, I think that's stretching it a little bit, especially when you say earlier that it's easy enough to pay the cost of strikes. I also don't really agree that it's such an overwhelming advantage most of the time, but I do absolutely agree that it needs to be toned down.

Most of my concern lies with the fact that it can RNG instant cockpit shot any mech in the game, and for those that defend it by saying that's not very likely to happen, that's a terrible way to defend it when it can and does happen (especially if you're on a cap point or the map is river city night or something) and says nothing to address how lame it is to be killed instantly like that. The issue is aggravated further by strikes being the most common method by far of destroying somebody's cockpit, which only happens because RNG shells come flying out of the sky from literally nowhere, so it's not much to ask that its capability of instantly destroying any mech in the game be toned down. Of course, the nature of it being a consumable strike and how it can be placed from potentially infinite range also raises concerns as well, but addressing the issue of damage per shell would go a long way towards making it more reasonable.

It's Artillery! It's supposed to obliterate anything that gets a direct hit.

As such the damage per shell is fine. Make the mechanic more "skillful", if that is what people are actually complaining about. I highly doubt though that the crying will stop even if the mechanic was changed. As I said previously:

Mystere, on 08 November 2014 - 11:11 PM, said:

Heck, once I killed with artillery someone who was already dismembered and one screw short of dying. And yet he raged in-game about being killed.

There are very many people playing online games who will just never stop complaining while something -- anything -- is still able to kill them.

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

Oh, the irony of telling me to go play CoD, while you simultaneously defend the MWO equivalent of "noobtubes" and magical kill streak perks.

It's less irony and more giving you a "dose of your own medicine".

Edited by Mystere, 09 November 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[InspectorG]

QuantumButler, on 09 November 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Games, however, should be fun, not hell.

For me thats some of the fun. I mean, i used to kickbox and the proposition of getting KTFO was worth the chance to do it to someone else.

I mean if you want war games with no sense of danger...Chess maybe? I like danger. I pilot a Locust.
You cant take the heat, get out the kitchen, yes?

Otherwise, maybe this niche game isnt for you???? If PGI nerfs the difficulty, then this game will no longer be for me.

[QuantumButler]

InspectorG, on 09 November 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

For me thats some of the fun. I mean, i used to kickbox and the proposition of getting KTFO was worth the chance to do it to someone else.

I mean if you want war games with no sense of danger...Chess maybe? I like danger. I pilot a Locust.
You cant take the heat, get out the kitchen, yes?

Otherwise, maybe this niche game isnt for you???? If PGI nerfs the difficulty, then this game will no longer be for me.

I'm sorry you enjoy bad gameplay mechanics.

I guess it's true what they say.



I'm not sure what game you want to play, I want to play a game about Mechs shooting eachother to death, not hiding from infinite range red smoke spells that have a chance of instantly one shotting you to death or crippling you mech that are literally impossible to defend against, and don't throw none of that "just run away" BS at me, half the time the smoke is behind you and you don't even see it until it blows up your back armor and kills half the guns in your torso. .

Edited by QuantumButler, 09 November 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[Mystere]

QuantumButler, on 09 November 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

I'm sorry you enjoy bad gameplay mechanics.

Either you totally missed his point, or you have nothing better to retort with and as such are using a diversionary tactic.

The chance of being injured by a bokken did not stop me from enjoying. And it's so much better than being sliced by a real katana.

Edited by Mystere, 09 November 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[QuantumButler]

Mystere, on 09 November 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Either you totally missed his point, or you have nothing better to retort with and as such are using a diversionary tactic.

MWO isn't a wargame, it's a glorified arena shooter.

[Mystere]

QuantumButler, on 09 November 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

MWO isn't a wargame, it's a glorified arena shooter.

That's probably what you want it to be. We, on the other hand, want it to be much more. And therein likes the conflict.

Edited by Mystere, 09 November 2014 - 01:01 PM.

[Pjwned]

InspectorG, on 09 November 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

I personally dont mind the off change of a arty headshot. KEEPS YOU ON YOUR TOES AND YOU SHOULD NEVER FEEL SAFE on a battlefield.
War is hell, they say.

1. I would have less of an issue if cockpit destruction was more of a consistent risk with other methods, but instead headshots almost never happen with any other weapon system while strikes cause the most headshots by far, which is still not very often but it's still a problem.

2. You shouldn't be particularly worried of instant death shots in your hulking steel colossus when not even a dual gauss shot destroys the cockpit in 1 hit unless you get a particularly lucky crit roll, and that's assuming the gauss rounds even hit the cockpit. Before somebody might twist my words around, I'm not saying you shouldn't be worried at all about taking severe (potentially critical) damage to your cockpit in some situations, even in a single salvo from an actual weapon system (read: not consumable strikes) but that's pretty different from instant death shots from full HP.

[QuantumButler]

Mystere, on 09 November 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

That's probably what you want it to be. We, on the other hand, want it to be much more. And therein likes the conflict.

No, that's what has been, what it is, and what it always will be, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

MWO will forever be a Minimally viable product.

I'm sorry you think I shouldn't hate no fun, non skill based random deaths caused by Art or airstrikes, but I hate that, and red smoke has overall made playing the game more tedious than it used to be.

Edited by QuantumButler, 09 November 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[B0oN]

QuantumButler ?
I know this might sound difficult to stomach, but :
For most of us die-hard, hardcore BT fans it does NOT matter if a game was fun or hell (irrelevant classification, fun and hell are subjective) in it´s fundamental game-mechanics, we WILL adapt, just because that is what many of us do on a day-by-day basis, not only in their free-time when they are sitting at their PC´s/consoles and wish to kill time .

If you feel yourself unable to cope with demanding circmstaces, do no enter them .
Most of us mechwarriors want a game that is challenging, not some softened down version of a generic shooter with stompy robots where everybody has the same chances .
Sorry, but bollocks ... a light battlemech simply has not the same battlefield-chances of an assault and if you are getting hit by Artillery and Airstrikes you might want to reconsider your patterns of movement and taking cover to mitigate the risk of gettting hit by them .

Sadly this game never was "hardcore", not even for "roseglass-tinted" mw-lovers, it´s just too console/mainstream in it´s entirety to be true "fun" for a "real" mechwarrior .

If you still find this game too "hellish" and not "fun", might I suggest finding something else or finally grouping up with someone, because many in here would like an even "harder" gaming experience and not this slow and sluggish FPS like behaviour without everybody crying for nerfs all the time, which gets old really, really, really fast.

TL; DR :
Read it, understand it .
You´ll be wiser afterwards ...

[InspectorG]

QuantumButler, on 09 November 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

MWO will forever be a Minimally viable product.

If you think thus and dont think its any fun, why do you still play?

Why complain to us "few?" who are actually having fun? Whats the point?

I dont want an arena robot shooter.I used to play Armored Core, and assume thats what its still like. Maybe you would like that better?

Im hoping, with CW, that MWO becomes a strategy/shooter/sim HYBRID that is MORE than just robots fighting. Verdict will drop with CW and the initial tweaks.
Robots fighting+territory control+resource management+POLITICS would be great if not ambitious. Time will tell.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 09 November 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

1. I would have less of an issue if cockpit destruction was more of a consistent risk with other methods, but instead headshots almost never happen with any other weapon system while strikes cause the most headshots by far, which is still not very often but it's still a problem.

Head shots are a really sensitive issue. They seem to have huge psychological effects on many(?) players who experience them on the receiving end. On the few occasions that I have been able to accomplish such feats, I have always been accused of cheating or using an exploit. There are players out there who just will not accept that such things are even humanly possible.

And as such I view anyone and everyone who complains about head shots with extreme suspicion.

Edited by Mystere, 09 November 2014 - 01:30 PM.

[QuantumButler]

InspectorG, on 09 November 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

If you think thus and dont think its any fun, why do you still play?

Why complain to us "few?" who are actually having fun? Whats the point?

I dont want an arena robot shooter.I used to play Armored Core, and assume thats what its still like. Maybe you would like that better?

Im hoping, with CW, that MWO becomes a strategy/shooter/sim HYBRID that is MORE than just robots fighting. Verdict will drop with CW and the initial tweaks.
Robots fighting+territory control+resource management+POLITICS would be great if not ambitious. Time will tell.

Because PGI has the beloved childhood IP hostage and will never let other developers take a crack at it, it is the only game in town for BTech videogames.

**** ACs, **** Gundams, none of them are Mechs.

Edited by QuantumButler, 09 November 2014 - 01:33 PM.

[InspectorG]

QuantumButler, on 09 November 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Because PGI has the beloved childhood IP hostage and will never let other developers take a crack at it, it is the only game in town for BTech videogames.

**** ACs, **** Gundams, none of them are Mechs.

Well, the only way you will ever get the BT/MW game you want is if YOU own the IP. Otherwise its always gonna be up to interpretation of the owner and their business model.

Have you ever tried Megamek?

[Telmasa]

Grey Ghost, on 09 November 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Seriously now... If Arty/Air is going to stay exactly as it is then I want 2 consumables to counter each specific one, and just like Arty/Air they wouldn't stack. Call them Communication/Signal Jamming/Scrambling whatever. Have them basically use the same delay / use restrictions of Arty/Air. Maybe not stack with Arty/Air as well?

Now activating them might be tricky... either they automatically go off depending on whoever is closest to (and within) the strike zone for multiple carriers, or carrying either one gives an audible warning for manual activation.

Yeah, I'd pay the same amount of C-Bills to lessen the spam a bit.

I'd totally dig this idea, honestly...if players can pay to win to have a cheesey firepower advantage, I should be able to pay to neutralize said advantage.

Mystere, on 09 November 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

That's probably what you want it to be. We, on the other hand, want it to be much more less. And therein likes the conflict.

FTFY. Artillery/air strikes as currently implemented detract from the impact player skill and interaction has on the flow of game.

Rad Hanzo, on 09 November 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

Most of us mechwarriors want a game that is challenging, not some softened down version of a generic shooter with stompy robots where everybody has the same chances .

And why can't we have both?
Why can't the game be a generic shooter with stompy robots where everybody has the same chances, while ALSO being challenging and engaging?
Why would including a cheesey no-drawbacks power gimmick be NECESSARY in order for the game to be a challenge?

It's perfectly possible to introduce fun challenges to the game while also keeping those additions fair and balanced.

Every other weapon system in the game carries a drawback of some kind that is totally separate from purchase price & the economics of its usage.

Why can't this one be balanced too?

[Mystere]

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

FTFY. Artillery/air strikes as currently implemented detract from the impact player skill and interaction has on the flow of game.

Then improve the mechanics (e.g. require TAG). But, retain their devastating nature (i.e. a direct hit to your cockpit should kill you). The latter is "non-negotiable" for quite a number in here.

[WarHippy]

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

FTFY. Artillery/air strikes as currently implemented detract from the impact player skill and interaction has on the flow of game.

This is wrong. Knowing when and where to place the strike does add to the flow of the game. It also adds to the skill of the game as it requires people to be more aware of their surroundings, which can only been seen as a plus.

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

And why can't we have both?
Why can't the game be a generic shooter with stompy robots where everybody has the same chances, while ALSO being challenging and engaging?
Why would including a cheesey no-drawbacks power gimmick be NECESSARY in order for the game to be a challenge?

We don't want a generic shooter. If this was just another mind numbing shooter our time and money could be well spent somewhere else where they did it better.

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

It's perfectly possible to introduce fun challenges to the game while also keeping those additions fair and balanced.

Strikes are fair and balanced, but I'm curious what these other fun challenges are? Keep in mind fun is subjective, and what you assume is fun isn't for someone else much like how strikes are not fun for you but are for others.

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Every other weapon system in the game carries a drawback of some kind that is totally separate from purchase price & the economics of its usage.

It does. It can only be used one time, it isn't accurate(damage is spread all over a large area), and as you said the price of it. On top of that no other weapon needs to be purchased again and again to keep using it, nor does any other weapon require a GXP investment to be brought to mild-moderate usefulness.

Telmasa, on 09 November 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Why can't this one be balanced too?

It is so why keep complaining?

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 09 November 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

It's Artillery! It's supposed to obliterate anything that gets a direct hit.

Based on what, some real life analogue that you obsessively bring up which has very little relevance to a competitive online mech shooter video game that is completely fictional? It certainly doesn't seem to be based on any ideas of balance given your statements in the past about not caring what effect that artillery, as it stands, has on the balance of the game, so it's rather difficult for me to be convinced in any way if the arguments just throw the concept of balance out the window.

Quote

As such the damage per shell is fine. Make the mechanic more "skillful", if that is what people are actually complaining about. I highly doubt though that the crying will stop even if the mechanic was changed. As I said previously:

It really should be more "skillful" and have its damage per shell reduced, unless you want to change the whole thing so much that it would hardly be recognizable anymore.

Quote

There are very many people playing online games who will just never stop complaining while something -- anything -- is still able to kill them.

That doesn't invalidate criticisms about artillery strikes which other people have that are much less about finishing off a nearly destroyed mech. Personally I still think that the consumable, infinite range placement aspect of artillery strikes that come out of nowhere is a little lame, and I think I can at least partly empathize that somebody would be frustrated enough by those things (aside from any other problems artillery strikes might have) to still complain about it even if the situation was not really highly unfair, so although their complaints may be a bit out of place there, it doesn't mean "OH WELL WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL STILL COMPLAIN HURF" and I don't see how that's a remotely convincing argument or even really an argument at all; frankly I think that's rather stupid.

I would just like to note that, for the most part, I do think finishing off a mech like that seems pretty fair (and would also like to emphasize that reducing the damage per shell would not ruin this usage of strikes) and not really something that I'm arguing to change; at least, that's not something I'm arguing right now, can't say I won't change my mind about allowing people to do that without a piece of equipment like the Command Console or something like that.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 09 November 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Based on what, some real life analogue that you obsessively bring up which has very little relevance to a competitive online mech shooter video game that is completely fictional? It certainly doesn't seem to be based on any ideas of balance given your statements in the past about not caring what effect that artillery, as it stands, has on the balance of the game, so it's rather difficult for me to be convinced in any way if the arguments just throw the concept of balance out the window.

For many people here, the word "artillery" means something. Some have gone though it and lived to tell a tale. Some have used it and know very well the havoc they create. And some know exactly what they are capable of because they have been involved in designing them.

As such, in a game that has something called "artillery" in it, there are people here who expect it to be "Artillery!". The only semblance of "balance" required is that it is available to everyone.

Pjwned, on 09 November 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

It really should be more "skillful" and have its damage per shell reduced, unless you want to change the whole thing so much that it would hardly be recognizable anymore.

I don't think anyone is arguing against not making its use more "skillful". It's the damage they do that is in question.

Pjwned, on 09 November 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

That doesn't invalidate criticisms about artillery strikes which other people have that are much less about finishing off a nearly destroyed mech. Personally I still think that the consumable, infinite range placement aspect of artillery strikes that come out of nowhere is a little lame, and I think I can at least partly empathize that somebody would be frustrated enough by those things (aside from any other problems artillery strikes might have) to still complain about it even if the situation was not really highly unfair, so although their complaints may be a bit out of place there, it doesn't mean "OH WELL WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL STILL COMPLAIN HURF" and I don't see how that's a remotely convincing argument or even really an argument at all; frankly I think that's rather stupid.

See above.

Also, you missed my point entirely. I was specifically talking about someone already very close to death complaining about being killed by artillery.

Pjwned, on 09 November 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

I would just like to note that, for the most part, I do think finishing off a mech like that seems pretty fair (and would also like to emphasize that reducing the damage per shell would not ruin this usage of strikes) and not really something that I'm arguing to change; at least, that's not something I'm arguing right now, can't say I won't change my mind about allowing people to do that without a piece of equipment like the Command Console or something like that.

And I want artillery to be deadly because that is a sure way of making them totally feared in this game. It is precisely that fear that I am counting on to "motivate" the enemy to do what I want.

Heck these days, when I am in a heavy or assault, I will just barrel through the red smoke if I ever see one. And in the weeks I have been doing this, I recall being killed by artillery only once. And this happened only a few days ago and my mech was already heavily damaged. As such, it was no big deal as far as I am concerned.

Edited by Mystere, 09 November 2014 - 05:30 PM.

[Mainhunter]

I made around 15 Kills with Arty, and there was not one thereby that inflicted a headshot.