20517 replies to this topic

[ssm]

The Birdeater, on 30 January 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Absolutely!

Btw. PGI should finally update their media section. The Kintaro was the last concept art that they've added and i'm still waiting for the regular five* reseen mechs in original paintings* with an higher resolution. In addition, the six reseens are still not listed in the game section. Dunno why!

*Five mechs, because the Locust was added some time ago.
* Original paintings like the Locust concept in the concept art section, not phoenix paintings.

I read somewhere that they're planning complete redesign of certain site areas - mech & media sections among them.

Edited by ssm, 30 January 2014 - 09:34 AM.

[stjobe]

ssm, on 30 January 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

I read somewhere that they're planning complete redesign of certain site areas - mech & media sections among them.

But it will have to wait for UI 2.0, right?

[FireSlade]

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

They added a lot of rewards to the Clan Collection. Dang, now I will have to decide what to buy before 28 February... :/

I will buy an 'A la Carte' (simply can't/won't commit $240 for the Masakari Collection), but which one? Timber Wolf or Warhawk?
Timberwolf is faster and has more hardpoint variaty/quantity;
Warhawk is slower but have better armor and has free tons to carry very big guns.

Why not select into the Timber Wolf now and when we get more info about the Warhawk then you purchase it before they are released. AFAIK we only need 1 mech to opt in for the perks and we can upgrade our package at anytime.

[Odanan]

FireSlade, on 30 January 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Why not select into the Timber Wolf now and when we get more info about the Warhawk then you purchase it before they are released. AFAIK we only need 1 mech to opt in for the perks and we can upgrade our package at anytime.

Indeed!

But to be honest, I'll wait to see how the Clans are implemented before making that second purchase.

Heck, if PGI manages to live up to their promises (and surprises us with a flawless Clan implementation), I might even upgrade the "A La Carte" to a "Collection".

[ssm]

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

Indeed!

But to be honest, I'll wait to see how the Clans are implemented before making that second purchase.

Heck, if PGI manages to live up to their promises (and surprises us with a flawless Clan implementation), I might even upgrade the "A La Carte" to a "Collection".

D you really believe in such thing as "flawless Clan implementation" is possibile?

[John MatriX82]

Meh, to me the only interesting thing into there looks to be the Dire Wolf (planning to swap the Prime with Alt.B side).

The rest.. meh, I'd like the Summoner, but knowing the thing will have less armor than what you can get on a Shawk, it will hardly be interesting at all.

So, very eventually, PGI has time until mid June to see me paying for the Dire Wolf, provided they:
-fix SRMs,
-rework movement archetypes,
-introduce sized hardpoints,
-get rid of ghost heat,
-thus rebalancing the whole game
-UI 2.0 with Smurfy mechlab,
-un-nerf the GR,
-fix the matchmaker,
-re-introduce collisions.

I'd also add having Clans coming before CW, but that isn't certainly going to happen and I have my doubts that CW will ever come, so for June they have a list that will hardly be ever done given their priorities.. And even if I'm not playing anymore my cbill account has enough money to afford roughly 8 Dire Wolves, so who cares

[Butane9000]

Well given that it's 4 if the new hero isn't posted inside the hour it will probably be posted tomorrow.

[Odanan]

ssm, on 30 January 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

D you really believe in such thing as "flawless Clan implementation" is possibile?

I liked the implementation of the weapons in MW3 - the most accurate in the MW series... Sure, the customization system was unreal (allowed any modification, like in MW2), but the stats were very loyal to the TT.

If PGI don't nerf the Clan weapons, but implement a different approach (assimetrical warfare), I will be happy enough.

[ssm]

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

I liked the implementation of the weapons in MW3 - the most accurate in the MW series... Sure, the customization system was unreal (allowed any modification, like in MW2), but the stats were very loyal to the TT.

If PGI don't nerf the Clan weapons, but implement a different approach (assimetrical warfare), I will be happy enough.

I'm afraid assimetrical warfare just won't work in multiplayer game like this. Most of the playerbase (or at least enough to make point of CW moot) would just go over to the Clans, because being superior-but-outnumbered is just plain more fun experience than being cannon (or in this case - canon) fodder.

*In before: MW 2/3/4, planetary leagues and olden times - different time, different playerbase, different everything.

[Odanan]

ssm, on 30 January 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

I'm afraid assimetrical warfare just won't work in multiplayer game like this. Most of the playerbase (or at least enough to make point of CW moot) would just go over to the Clans, because being superior-but-outnumbered is just plain more fun experience than being cannon (or in this case - canon) fodder.

I suppose the younger and more individualist players would go for the Clans - no problem in that. But the very old school and team players would stick with the IS.

I would love to group up against those vat-bornes.

Edited by Odanan, 30 January 2014 - 03:21 PM.

[BarHaid]

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

I suppose the younger and more individualist players would go for the Clans - no problem in that. But the very old school and team players would stick with the IS.

I would love to group up against those vat-bornes.

Argh, greybreads forever! Ugh! My heart.....

[ssm]

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

I suppose the younger and more individualist players would go for the Clans - no problem in that. But the very old school and team players would stick with the IS.

I would love to group up against those vat-bornes.

I understand - but we have consider the main problem here - success of this game largely depends of success of CW, and for that we'll have to populate IS factions.

And not only younger players would gravitate toward Clans - there is also pretty large Clan following among roleplaing grognards, and even larger part of core BT fanbase who loves BT but don't indentify with either IS or Clans, and will simply choose whatever playstyle would be more fun.

If PGI would choose to provide more-fun individualistic gameplay as alternative to current, teamwork-reliant one, enough players will go over to the Clans and depopulate IS factions to kill CW, and thus - MWO.

Edited by ssm, 30 January 2014 - 03:52 PM.

[Odanan]

ssm, on 30 January 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

I understand - but we have consider the main problem here - success of this game largely depends of success of CW, and for that we'll have to populate IS factions.

And not only younger players would gravitate toward Clans - there is also pretty large Clan following among roleplaing grognards, and even larger part of core BT fanbase who loves BT but don't indentify with either IS or Clans, and will simply choose whatever playstyle would be more fun.

If PGI would choose to provide more-fun individualistic gameplay as alternative to current, teamwork-reliant one, enough players will go over to the Clans and depopulate IS factions to kill CW, and thus - MWO.

I propose the asymmetrical warfare because I don't trust PGI to be able to balance the Clan tech by just nerfing it. In fact, that's impossible.

When you lock armor and engine you just make Clan mechs unbalanced within each other. Timberwolf, Stormcrow and Warhawk, for instance, will be unaffected (max armor, excellent speed) and Kit Fox, Vulture and Hellbringer will be ruined.

So, some Clan mechs will continue to be OP, even with a nerf in Clan weapons.
Conclusion: is the Clan tech nerf that will be responsible for the abandon of IS tech.

With asymmetrical warfare, people might keep their IS mechs for trying a different play style (maybe even easier than playing with the OP Clan tech, but in large number disadvantage).

Edited by Odanan, 30 January 2014 - 04:13 PM.

[ssm]

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

I propose the asymmetrical warfare because I don't trust PGI to be able to balance the Clan tech by just nerfing it. In fact, that's impossible.

When you lock armor and engine you just make Clan mechs unbalanced within each other. Timberwolf, Stormcrow and Warhawk, for instance, will be unaffected (max armor, excellent speed) and Kit Fox, Vulture and Hellbringer will be ruined.

So, some Clan mechs will continue to be OP, even with a nerf in Clan weapons.
Conclusion: is the Clan tech nerf that will be responsible for the abandon of IS tech.

With asymmetrical warfare, people might keep their IS mechs for trying a different play style (maybe even easier than playing with the OP Clan tech, but in large number disadvantage).

Well, they just have to figure out how to do this exactly - but reyling on players to use IS tech (and thus, populate IS factions) because it'll offer different playstyle would be akin to relying on them to use balanced builds, not follow the meta etc. - some will do this for various reasons, but you simply can't balance the game by hoping players would do this.

I don't know whether PGI's proposed changes (or ones they settle for finally) will be enough, but on the other hand - I'm certain that implementing them as in TT would completely skew the CW, and by this - MWO.

Edited by ssm, 31 January 2014 - 01:00 AM.

[Odanan]

ssm, on 30 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

I don't know whether PGI's proposed changes (or ones they settle for finally) will be enough, but on the other hand - I'm certain that implementing them as in TT would completely skew the CW, and by this - MWO.

I'm certain it wouldn't.

[ssm]

Odanan, on 31 January 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

I'm certain it wouldn't.

Well, then, who would you populate no less than six IS factions with, besides a relatively small number of role-playing grognards?

[Odanan]

If PGI will allow players of IS factions to have Clan mechs, they should do this: allow players to choose two factions, one for IS and one for Clan. When the IS faction is selected, you can play only with IS mechs and when the Clan faction is selected, you can play only with Clan mechs.

Or simply do this:


If IS mechs, even with inferior tech, have a fair fighting change (thanks to their greater numbers), people will continue to play with them. Why would people sell all their IS stuff if they have the chance to have fun grouping up against the Clans? - I wouldn't do that for sure.

Now, if the Clan weapons are nerfed but continue to be slightly better (with the current proposal, they will) and Clan mechs are allowed to play mixed with IS mechs, the min-max culture will guarantee a major migration to Clan tech.

PS: the only problem I see with Clan-only teams and IS-only teams is: pre-made groups will need to choose to play with IS-only or Clan-only before each match.

Honestly, I'm tired of explaining this. So if you still don't agree, fine. Whatever.

Edited by Odanan, 31 January 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[ssm]

Odanan, on 31 January 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

If PGI will allow players of IS factions to have Clan mechs, they should do this: allow players to choose two factions, one for IS and one for Clan. When the IS faction is selected, you can play only with IS mechs and when the Clan faction is selected, you can play only with Clan mechs.

Or simply do this:


If IS mechs, even with inferior tech, have a fair fighting change (thanks to their greater numbers), people will continue to play with them. Why would people sell all their IS stuff if they have the chance to have fun grouping up against the Clans? - I wouldn't do that for sure.

Now, if the Clan weapons are nerfed but continue to be slightly better (with the current proposal, they will) and Clan mechs are allowed to play mixed with IS mechs, the min-max culture will guarantee a major migration to Clan tech.

PS: the only problem I see with Clan-only teams and IS-only teams is: pre-made groups will need to choose to play with IS-only or Clan-only before each match.

Honestly, I'm tired of explaining this. So if you still don't agree, fine. Whatever.

Well, there is certainly one thing we are agreed upon - I'm also tired of explaining my point on this forums.

As of "fun grouping up agains the Clans" - it's akin to "fun of grouping with Locusts against Jenners", because most people would just take Jenner instead. As you've said yourself - it's min-max culture. Not a Planetary League decade ago. Not to mention "You'll still play IS tech because you don't want to sell stuff that you've worked so hard to aquire" isn't really good incentive to play IS mechs, if MWO at all.

Split accounts that you propose are really good idea - but they don't really adress main point: Why would sb who can play Clans and rely more on his individual skill than his team choose to play IS tech instead?

[Odanan]

ssm, on 31 January 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Split accounts that you propose are really good idea - but they don't really adress main point: Why would sb who can play Clans and rely more on his individual skill than his team choose to play IS tech instead?

That's an interesting question. It is answered here:

Odanan, on 30 January 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

I suppose the younger and more individualist players would go for the Clans - no problem in that. But the very old school and team players would stick with the IS.

[Odanan]

And if you had the choice of playing in a team of 16 Locusts* or a team of 10 Jenners, which one would you choose? I would try both.

ssm, on 31 January 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

As of "fun grouping up agains the Clans" - it's akin to "fun of grouping with Locusts against Jenners", because most people would just take Jenner instead.