254 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Brody319, on 03 February 2015 - 09:11 PM, said:

yea was real hard...you know...moving to the right....
and all those game guides....

Give me a break. Some of us were real men... and played them for what they were... without Nintendo Power. Or, you know... some of us played PC games in the 80s... Stuff like Ultima 5, 6 and 7. Stuff that told you NOTHING and had to figure it all out on your own.

I'd laugh probably watching today's "gamer" try to play Ultima 6. They'd laughably throw up their arms after a few hours and quit because it required too much thought or something.

There was no handholding. There was only months of playing, reading, talking, exploring. There was no automap in Bard's Tale. Instead, there were squares that turned the screen black and shouted "Darkness!" And all you had was your graph paper. And even then, sometimes, you'd stumble upon a door, land in a room with 99 Berserkers, 99 Berserkers, 99 Berserkers and 99 Berserkers... and if your Wizard didn't have MIBL (mind blade) or was out of mana... oh dear. You were screwed.

And the best part? Death was death. If you turned the game off... guess what? It wiped your entire bank account balance. Yeah. That was hardcore. It had, you know... consequences.

Us real men didn't use hint books. We grew wirey beards and drank naphtha before we took on the Grey Dragon. Because you know what? We didn't open our mouths like sissies and scream when it licked us with its burning flames.

And when our families died in Oregon Trail... we liked it!

Games these days. Meh. Don't get me started.

I'd like to see you try and beat Zelda 1 without a hintbook. Or how about Metroid 1, no cheats, no hints... or Goonies 2... or *gasp* if you are a real man... go ahead and beat Dragon Slayer IV, Drasle Family. And after that, Castlevania 1 and 3 without hints. Get back to me after that, kid.

[Escef]

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

You have a knack for invalidating any argument you have with illogical posts like these.

He whines, and then when confronted by it he wants to respond with "ggclose"? If me pointing out that he's intellectually lazy invalidates my points than... Well, no, there's no "if" there. A valid point is a valid point. The fact that he can't even defend his ideas without falling back on an argument that boils down to, "I don't like to think," is pretty sad.

Now, if people want to argue that the maps play too similarly, that they want different play experiences to shake things up, great, I'm all for that. If there's an issue with terrain in certain areas making for boring and repetitive play, great, let's discuss it, maybe come to a community consensus (dangerous if something like that ever happens, right?), and bring it to PGI's attention (Russ is fairly responsive on twitter, and certain members of the community seem to have an easier time bending his ear than others).

But the entire line of thinking that the map is bad because teams don't plan, can't improvise, and are so utterly shocked, SHOCKED!, that the other team opposes them, scouts them out, and does what they can to prevent them from achieving their goal would be laughable if not for how vehemently that argument is made. This is a war game, and your opponents are other human beings that are trying to play a war game. They are not A.I. opponents, they will do things specifically to hinder, fool, or redirect you. They will not take you head on unless they think they have an advantage, they will flank you, use indirect fire and/or arty/air strike assets if they have them, etc. And they do all this because they are trying to defeat you. They do not exist for you to just walk up to and push over. Nor do you exist for them to push over.

So, yeah, if someone gets obsessed with whining, and I point it out, and then he just straight up trolls and I call him on it? If that invalidates good ideas in your view, than you probably need to change your way of viewing. Problems don't get fixed without being confronted. Whether that problem is a bad map, lack of variety in play, or just one player's crappy attitude is irrelevant. Confront problems to solve problems.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

You do realize that only a couple of your responses actually used logic in them. By logic I mean you didn't rely on hyperbole, strawmen, or any other sort of fallacy.

Saying that he should cry less, and that all he does is whine does not qualify as a logical argument. So yes, it is no surprise all he responded with is ggclose because that post was filled with more hyperbole and strawmen than it was with logical arguments.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 04 February 2015 - 06:39 PM.

[Escef]

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

You do realize that in only 2 out of 5 of your responses actually used logic in them. By logic I mean you didn't rely on hyperbole, strawmen, or any other sort of fallacy.

Saying that he should cry less, and that all he does is whine does not qualify as a logical argument. So yes, it is no surprise all he responded with is ggclose because that post was filled with more hyperbole and strawmen than it was with logical arguments.

Ok, show me your ideas. Do you have any, other than, "OMG, Escef, you're mean!" So, yes, please, show me these hyperboles and strawmen. Show me. Because if I'm not seeing it than I need to be shown. I looked it over just now. I expressed some frustration, but every point I made seemed pretty valid. So, instead of just whipping out your logical fallacy names, show me where I committed them. Ok?

[Lazerblazer]

Lily from animove, on 04 February 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

maps like in MWLL would be a hell of lrm and snipermechs where anything else would enter a pointless existence, and having ecm or not would totally decide who is winning the matches because ecm is a lrm stealth bubble atm.

MWLL had an active/passive radar scheme as described here: http://wiki.mechlivi...php?title=Radar. The earlier games had something similar as well. This protects from missile locks and getting spotted.

I would love it if PGI would develop CW to be a more open area simulator-/scenariolike playmode with less concentrated action but more strategic elements. But the game mechanics should probably be adjusted to fit that kind of gameplay so it should probably be more separate from the current arena style game mode.

[Brody319]

Mister Blastman, on 04 February 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

Give me a break. Some of us were real men... and played them for what they were... without Nintendo Power. Or, you know... some of us played PC games in the 80s... Stuff like Ultima 5, 6 and 7. Stuff that told you NOTHING and had to figure it all out on your own.

I'd laugh probably watching today's "gamer" try to play Ultima 6. They'd laughably throw up their arms after a few hours and quit because it required too much thought or something.

There was no handholding. There was only months of playing, reading, talking, exploring. There was no automap in Bard's Tale. Instead, there were squares that turned the screen black and shouted "Darkness!" And all you had was your graph paper. And even then, sometimes, you'd stumble upon a door, land in a room with 99 Berserkers, 99 Berserkers, 99 Berserkers and 99 Berserkers... and if your Wizard didn't have MIBL (mind blade) or was out of mana... oh dear. You were screwed.

And the best part? Death was death. If you turned the game off... guess what? It wiped your entire bank account balance. Yeah. That was hardcore. It had, you know... consequences.

Us real men didn't use hint books. We grew wirey beards and drank naphtha before we took on the Grey Dragon. Because you know what? We didn't open our mouths like sissies and scream when it licked us with its burning flames.

And when our families died in Oregon Trail... we liked it!

Games these days. Meh. Don't get me started.

I'd like to see you try and beat Zelda 1 without a hintbook. Or how about Metroid 1, no cheats, no hints... or Goonies 2... or *gasp* if you are a real man... go ahead and beat Dragon Slayer IV, Drasle Family. And after that, Castlevania 1 and 3 without hints. Get back to me after that, kid.

So "I did it without it, that must mean you can't do it without it!"
mmyea no. I've beaten plenty of games without any guides, cheats or hints. Also Legend of Zelda 1 had hints and guides in the booklet, which came with the game.

[Soy]

Brody319, on 04 February 2015 - 06:59 PM, said:

So "I did it without it, that must mean you can't do it without it!"
mmyea no. I've beaten plenty of games without any guides, cheats or hints. Also Legend of Zelda 1 had hints and guides in the booklet, which came with the game.

Brody, it's simple. Mister B's point is that non-linearity lends itself to more critical thinking, which is a challenge for most of the unimaginative sheeps who play games these days. Consequently, after considering that notion through an economic lens (ie, Clash of Clans had a ******* Superbowl ad), it's obvious that handholding and flattening out the bell curve of skill benefits the majority, aka more money to be earned.

Brody319, on 03 February 2015 - 09:11 PM, said:

yea was real hard...you know...moving to the right....
and all those game guides....

Btw Mr. B also mentioned Metroid in the same post, which you have to go to the left to fight the final boss. ;D

[Brody319]

Soy, on 04 February 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

Brody, it's simple. Mister B's point is that non-linearity lends itself to more critical thinking, which is a challenge for most of the unimaginative sheeps who play games these days. Consequently, after considering that notion through an economic lens (ie, Clash of Clans had a ******* Superbowl ad), it's obvious that handholding and flattening out the bell curve of skill benefits the majority, aka more money to be earned.



Btw Mr. B also mentioned Metroid in the same post, which you have to go to the left to fight the final boss. ;D

I'm just saying that putting tutorials in games is NOT a bad thing. Older games didn't put them in the game because they needed all the space they could get, and so put all the same information in the game booklets. not saying All old games are easy, just that saying new games are too easy is kinda stupid, I know several new games that are mind bendingly hard and difficult. people get older and notice patterns and focus elements more. when you were a kid, a single shiny rock could divert your attention from what the programmers wanted you to be looking at. now as an adult you don't stare at that rock and thus progress more.

yea some games go for mass appeal, but there is just as many who want to craft a hard experience. Look at "FTL: Faster than Light". newer game, hard as ****! I know several people who have played it for hours and never won.

Also, who really cares if clash of clans got a super bowl ad? It is technically a game, and it does have a large player base. but most people I know just use it as a minor minigame in between bigger things and as a distraction. I don't see what is wrong with that, and if they wanna shell out the cash for it, power to them. thats how capitalism works.

Edited by Brody319, 04 February 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

NotMwHighlander, on 03 February 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Attack lane based maps are bad.









Does this look similar? It should, its called terrible map design.

Seriously, this is not Defense of the Ancients, League of Legends, Heros of the Storm, Heros of New Earth, Defense of the Ancients II, etc. etc. etc.


You (Russ) need to have an intervention with your map making team. I'll give them compliments of the pretty map, but oh lord, the map layout design is abysmal. It is not fun on either side to huddle around one of three pieces of cover standing still sniping for 15 minutes. Its painful gameplay. The CW maps are NOT the only offenders, mind you. Some of the least favored maps in this game have this design. River[Sh]city, Forest Colony, Frozen[Sh]city, Swamp, etc. In fact, a LARGE chunk of the map pool is quite bad.


What is wrong with having a map NOT BASED AROUND 2 ATTACK LANES?! Guess what happens when you can only go in one of two path routes. Its a bogged down bull **** sniper fest. Why can't you (the map team) design a map NOT based around the concept of Lanes. Stop it. The new map is almost as big of a let down as Swamp.

Just for a little insight, you know why people hate swamp besides the random invisible twigs and branches immobilizing their mechs? Because its based around a single central choke zone that you must engage at. Its awful gameplay. Stop.

Factory on the other hand, no central choke zone, not based on attack lanes, great map! Crimson, to a lesser extent, still good map. Hellbore Springs? Horrible experience. Give your players freedom of motion. Let them be able to attack from several locations, not a single predetermined path. Mechwarrior:Living Legends, MechWarrior 3, Mechwarrior 4, all had these vast maps with limitless ways they could get to a central focus point or base. None of them had single attack lanes, and it was great. These CW maps? Not so much.

I just hope future maps stop being designed around these attack lane concepts. Its bad, and you should feel bad. Very bad, because the resulting game play is horrible.

43 likes woo

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 06:45 PM, said:

Ok, show me your ideas.

This has no bearing on my point, and honestly why try reinvent the wheel when plenty of the MW4 maps worked well in a league setup for 5+ years.

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 06:45 PM, said:

Do you have any, other than, "OMG, Escef, you're mean!"

Again with the strawmen. Pointing out the fallacies in your argument has nothing to do with telling you to stop being "mean." It's more like this: "OMG, Escef, you're arguments are invalid!"

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 06:45 PM, said:

So, yes, please, show me these hyperboles and strawmen. Show me. Because if I'm not seeing it than I need to be shown. I looked it over just now. I expressed some frustration, but every point I made seemed pretty valid. So, instead of just whipping out your logical fallacy names, show me where I committed them. Ok?

Done.

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

You do what you have to do, you can't just magically teleport mechs. Don't play a war game if you are not prepared to deal with the fact that you are going to have opponents that do things to foil your plans. I swear, it becomes increasingly apparent that players want PvE because they have no idea how to deal with the fact that the opponent is not some brain dead algorithm.

• Teleporting mechs is a little bit hyperbolic and nowhere did he ask for anything like that.
  
• While war games aren't a subset of games that require adaptation of some sort, this isn't necessarily a problem comment, but it is what you use to setup your strawmen in the next statement.
  
• Huge leap in logic that because he believes that both attacker and defender sides should be fair means he wants the game to be PvE where he plays against AI.

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Yeah, sometimes the opponent finds you and pins you down. You want to cry about it? Good for you. Me? I'll use it. Get their attention, as much as possible. Use the Gamma team as a diversion. If your whole force is there, send the fast movers off to flank while the slower elements keep them occupied. A few shots here and there. You have 4 mechs per player, you can afford to spend a few on a diversion.

Voicing someones opinion and whining/crying are somewhat two separate things, and I'd be willing to bet other people would agree with me on the opinion that none of his post was that. Deriding a reasonable argument as crying adds as much to the conversation as the actual crying does.

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

All of your whining, and it really is whining, boils down to the fact that you and your teams are tactically inept.

This really needs no explanation.

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

Perhaps, but that's nothing compared to your gameplay. Get out of the 12v12 mindset, it's getting you slaughtered.

I have no idea on whether or not you two have played against each other consistently but it seems to me you are making quite the assumption if you haven't.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 04 February 2015 - 07:35 PM.

[White Panther]

This is what happens when you have stubborn tools trying to design maps. Admit that mw4 did some stuff right like having good maps, nothing wrong with using some of those ideas.

[Kjudoon]

It'd be nice to see a base that can be attacked from 360 degrees with a LOT of open space around it like a fort on the prairie or better yet, take tips from the Napoleonic/colonial era of fort construction like Ticonderoga, St. Augustine or Chateau Frontenac. These inspirations would produce FAR better maps than this DOTA lane garbage.

Bigger maps.
Non designated combat zones
No arena feel

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mister Blastman, on 04 February 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

I'd like to see you try and beat Zelda 1 without a hintbook. Or how about Metroid 1, no cheats, no hints... or Goonies 2... or *gasp* if you are a real man... go ahead and beat Dragon Slayer IV, Drasle Family. And after that, Castlevania 1 and 3 without hints. Get back to me after that, kid.

What do these have to do with MWO?

Cause when I was beating Zelda there WERENT hint books yet for it. OR game sharks or game genies etc

Kjudoon, on 04 February 2015 - 07:50 PM, said:

It'd be nice to see a base that can be attacked from 360 degrees with a LOT of open space around it like a fort on the prairie

Then the tears about arty or lrms would truly be grand

[Kjudoon]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 04 February 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

Then the tears about arty or lrms would truly be grand

Sorry... was there a point about that being a BAD thing?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Kjudoon, on 04 February 2015 - 08:08 PM, said:

Sorry... was there a point about that being a BAD thing?

Other than the idea that LRMs get adjusted by how much tears are created by volume. Or thats how theyve historically ruined er I mean balanced them

[Escef]

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Again with the strawmen. Pointing out the fallacies in your argument has nothing to do with telling you to stop being "mean." It's more like this: "OMG, Escef, you're arguments are invalid!"

Except when you do nothing to say my arguments are invalid, and simply complain, with no justification that I'm attacking him with fallacies, yes, that is what you are saying.

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Teleporting mechs is a little bit hyperbolic and nowhere did he ask for anything like that.

My point was that you can't simply expect to get mechs where ever you want them when you want them there. There was no attempt to belittle here, and if it was interpreted as such that is unfortunate. (I'm past the point where I can offer a sincere apology, so I won't insult anyone with an insincere one.)

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Huge leap in logic that because he believes that both attacker and defender sides should be fair means he wants the game to be PvE where he plays against AI.

This was not a comment about Winter specifically, but rather was a blanket statement of my frustration with certain segments of the community. If you, or Winter, think this was some kind of strawman or personal attack, that's totally on you.

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Voicing someones opinion and whining/crying are somewhat two separate things, and I'd be willing to bet other people would agree with me on the opinion that none of his post was that.

So, it's a logical fallacy or some such because of opinion now? He has complained several times on this matter, in this thread, so at this point it's pretty fair to classify it as whining. Especially when what he is complaining about is due to the enemy team doing what they are supposed to be doing: taking advantage of opposing players while they are in an area that limits their choices. And I've got no sympathy there. If one goes into such an area than that individual has no one to blame but themselves.

WM Quicksilver, on 04 February 2015 - 07:34 PM, said:

Deriding a reasonable argument as crying adds as much to the conversation as the actual crying does.

I do not find that going into limiting terrain and having the opposing team exploit that is a reasonable complaint. If you put yourself into a position that can obviously be exploited by the opposition than don't have the nerve to complain about it when they take advantage of it. Instead of aiming his criticism at the the enemy team for doing something that makes sense, or at himself for knowingly doing something risky, he instead redirects his frustration at the map itself.

A good map does NOT take away the option to make bad decisions. Rather, it gives that option to the players. Sometimes the high risk, high reward option works. But just because you have tied the noose does not mean the noose has any moral or ethical objections to you being put in it.

So far his complaints stem from bad decisions on his part, or from the fact that risky options are available. And there's no defense for that. A valid complaint is NOT "I did something risky and the enemy team hammered me for it." So, no, he is NOT making reasonable arguments. And pointing out that the argument IS unreasonable is necessary to remove it from the conversation. It has no place in the argument, and you are NOT helping the discussion by trying to portray it as reasonable.

[Mister Blastman]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 04 February 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

What do these have to do with MWO?

Blame Brody. He brought it up with his snide remark.

[Mister Blastman]

Brody319, on 04 February 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'm just saying that putting tutorials in games is NOT a bad thing.

Yes it is. I'd rather we go back to the old days of PC gaming snobbery where manuals were 200 pages long and nothing was spelled out simply as... Go to A. Do B. Get C.

And I don't believe Zelda came with a hintbook back in 1986. I know Drasle Family didn't. Nor did Ultima 6. Or 7. Or Bard's Tale.

And if you REALLY are a stud... You'll be able to say with complete honesty you were able to beat Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark for the Atari 2600 back in 1983 without any hints whatsoever.

I only know one person ever who has done that...

[Brody319]

Mister Blastman, on 04 February 2015 - 08:41 PM, said:

Blame Brody. He brought it up with his snide remark.

No i didn't you bring up the topic of "80s were better yo" I have the right to disagree, and so I did.

Mister Blastman, on 04 February 2015 - 08:45 PM, said:

Yes it is. I'd rather we go back to the old days of PC gaming snobbery where manuals were 200 pages long and nothing was spelled out simply as... Go to A. Do B. Get C.

And I don't believe Zelda came with a hintbook back in 1986. I know Drasle Family didn't. Nor did Ultima 6. Or 7. Or Bard's Tale.

And if you REALLY are a stud... You'll be able to say with complete honesty you were able to beat Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark for the Atari 2600 back in 1983 without any hints whatsoever.

I only know one person ever who has done that...

http://www.nesfiles....Zelda/Zelda.pdf

orly?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Brody319, on 04 February 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

No i didn't you bring up the topic of "80s were better yo" I have the right to disagree, and so I did.




http://www.nesfiles....Zelda/Zelda.pdf

orly?

wow Ive never seen that book

and I had the gold zelda XD

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 04 February 2015 - 08:56 PM.