116 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Gyrok, on 30 March 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

That all but 4 people have disabled in the user.cfg

one of 4 here, i like it, yes its sometimes a bit annoying when it blocks vision, but wow, my RL doesn't depends on MWO, so who cares it still looks cool and is great. Window sweeper, lostech.

That constant need of people to stroke their epeen and taking any small advantage to improve everythign as tiny as it may be is just hilarious. Would call them configwarriors.

[DaZur]

Gyrok, on 30 March 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

How do you know you are not one of the 4?

We have a monthly meeting and the roll-call shows 5 in attendance?

[Quxudica]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

actually, it didn't work due to due exploits like the 75% autorepair that got *gasp* exploited.

There's no way to not have that exploited. You would have to have some % of auto repair and auto rearm, otherwise players would hit a point where they literally cannot play anymore.

Ultimately people exploited to get around RnR for a good reason, it added nothing of value to the game and caused a ton of problems.

Lily from animove, on 30 March 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

one of 4 here, i like it, yes its sometimes a bit annoying when it blocks vision, but wow, my RL doesn't depends on MWO, so who cares it still looks cool and is great. Window sweeper, lostech.

That constant need of people to stroke their epeen and taking any small advantage to improve everythign as tiny as it may be is just hilarious. Would call them configwarriors.

I like the cockpit glass, I don't think it should be removable (toned down maybe, but not removable). That said there is absolutely nothing wrong with competitive people who enjoy min/maxing for personal performance. Not everyone who does it does it for "Epeen", many do it because they find tweaking to such a nuanced degree to be enjoyable and fun.

Edited by Quxudica, 30 March 2015 - 02:33 PM.

[Gyrok]

DaZur, on 30 March 2015 - 02:25 PM, said:

We have a monthly meeting and the roll-call shows 5 in attendance?

LOL! Nice!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

Good, you actually spoke with meaning behind what you said.

First off, immersion is not some semantical ****. It's the MW/BT at large. For example, if you removed MW from MWO, it would already be dead. Not double down on that for CW with stuff like RnR is a waste.

RnR isn't essential to Mechwarrior though. RnR or any sort of economy is flawed in that there is always going to be some way to exploit it (on top of the exploitation of poor balance), it just adds another layer of complexity to an already complex equation as far as balance goes. So rather than attempt to balance the system that is mech/weapons, you add another layer of brokenness to the equation that rather than actually changing the way the game is played, simply changes the pieces involved.

[Rebas Kradd]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 02:00 PM, said:

Mech diversity requires:

1) Basic Weapon Balance
2) Light Quirks to fill in the gaps.

Instead we get unbalanced weapons, and quirks designed to "create a meta" for each chassis.

Meh.

How do you propose you balance weapons that can be employed in groups of 6-9 on one mech, and one or two on another?

[Bishop Steiner]

Rebas Kradd, on 30 March 2015 - 02:37 PM, said:

How do you propose you balance weapons that can be employed in groups of 6-9 on one mech, and one or two on another?

by not thinking symmetrically? Thats why one mech has better speed, or agility, or armor...superior hardpoint placement, etc.

[Davers]

zagibu, on 30 March 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

They have the stats. I posted a similar idea some time ago, where c-bill earning is scaled by inverse popularity of the mech. So if you drive meta cheese, you make less c-bills than if you perform the same in a less played mech.

Not sure how I would feel about a system that discouraged the use of good mechs. Wouldn't that lead to new players using bad mechs to make Cbills while vets would still use the good mechs because they have 500 million Cbills? Would losing in a bad mech with a higher payout be equivalent to winning in a good mech with a poor payout?

Plus, how would this work with all the Clan mechs being interchangeable? So the IS might get one variant that gets a bad payout, but entire chassis of Clan mechs get punished?

[FupDup]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

Good, you actually spoke with meaning behind what you said.

First off, immersion is not some semantical ****. It's the MW/BT at large. For example, if you removed MW from MWO, it would already be dead. Not double down on that for CW with stuff like RnR is a waste.

From my forum experience, I've determined that "immersion" is mostly a buzzword that people attach to any feature that they personally like, in order to make it sound fancier. It's similar to why people call Mechwarrior games "simulators."

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

The grind that new players have to give to this game could be changed. Dismissing that as some sort of impossibility is ******* asinine [Redacted]. The same exact thing goes for timidity of play - if rewards dictate that assertive or strong plays are rewarded properly, in mechs that should be vanguarding as such instead of borked hitboxers being FILO, that **** would be on the level even more.

How you don't see this is beyond me, but whatever [Redacted].

You're still replying to the wrong post, because my 3 main criticisms didn't involve the word "grind" (only used that word to reply to you).

---

It doesn't matter what you do to rewards, because somebody putting Premium Time in or Hero Mechs etc. will always have more spacebucks than somebody who does not. In the current game this isn't a problem, because having spacebucks right now just lets you acquire content at a faster rate. But, once you have that content, it's yours forever. So if little Timmy buys a Timberwolf in the current game setting, it's his forever. Nobody can ever take it from him.

With RnR, you don't just have to pay one fee to acquire content, you also have to pay continuously to KEEP your content. So little Timmy might buy a Hellbringer, but then he'd have to pay to repair and rearm it, which means that he could potentially be locked out from using his mech if he doesn't have enough cash.

Right now, you only need to pay for something once, which means that paying real life money is only a head start. Over time, somebody without that head start can still catch up because the "finish line" for the race hasn't moved. However, with RnR, you have to keep paying FOREVER, which means that the head start never wears off, because the finish line keeps moving and moving...

---


In terms of rewards, it's very simple to determine how it would end up. If you have to pay money for taking damage, RnR would encourage people to cower more than usual. This is because if you stick your head out, if you push or otherwise be aggressive, you take damage as a direct result. It's inevitable. So, if you got charged money for taking damage, aggressive behaviors that cause you to take damage would be something that people would want to avoid more. It's pretty straightforward. You'd have to make taking damage not induce a money penalty...are you willing to do that?

---

By the way, you still haven't found a way to address how lasers would become even more common and missiles/ballistics would be less desirable, because lasers don't cost money to shoot.

Edited by Tina Benoit, 09 April 2015 - 04:59 PM.

[Soy]

[Redacted]

By the way, I never mentioned lasers, I mentioned your [redacted] argument about RnR being bad cuz some sort of misconception that the newbie grind is fundamentally tied to risk vs reward, which is so dumb it hurts my brain thinking about anymore than this third reply.

It's about an intimate mechanic that is squandered for CW use in particular, but risk vs reward as a ubiquitous thing is always a plus.

You don't have to pay to continuously keep your content. What? You have de-railed.

You have to continuously risk in order to reap rewards.

For someone who talks about games a lot, you know jack about design.

Edited by Tina Benoit, 09 April 2015 - 05:03 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

It's about an intimate mechanic that is squandered for CW use in particular, but risk vs reward as a ubiquitous thing is always a plus.

A risk is only worthy of being considered a risk if it can't be mitigated. Having real money that can mitigate that risk is fundamental flaw of that system, disregarding the large problem with creating more expensive powerful tech in the first place.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 30 March 2015 - 02:55 PM.

[FupDup]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

[Redacted]

By the way, I never mentioned lasers, I mentioned your [Redacted] argument about RnR being bad cuz some sort of misconception that the newbie grind is fundamentally tied to risk vs reward, which is so dumb it hurts my brain thinking about anymore than this third reply.

It's about an intimate mechanic that is squandered for CW use in particular, but risk vs reward as a ubiquitous thing is always a plus.

You don't have to pay to continuously keep your content. What? You have derailed.

You have to continuously risk in order to reap rewards.

RnR doesn't add "risk." It adds inconvenience, but not risk.

Risk is something that occurs during the actual combat. For example, taking a mech with just LRMs but no backup guns is a risk, because it would be useless if your enemy gets close. Taking a mech with too many lasers and not enough heatsinks could be a risk if the enemy pushes into you and doesn't give you time to cool down. Or perhaps taking an XL engine in an IS mech is usually a risk, because you could die to a side torso loss.

Risk is something that your opponent can exploit to defeat you in battle. Risk is a tactical weakness.


RnR doesn't occur during combat. RnR doesn't change how combat flows. So if I beat down a stock Vindicator with my 2 LPL + 3 ERML Timberwolf, the fact that my mech is more expensive to repair wouldn't have any impact. My mech's higher costs don't change the fact that I won. The fact that I won is the only thing that matters. RnR only happens after I won, and by that time it's already too late for it to matter.

"Risks" need to happen during the actual combat itself. Not before the match, not after the match, not in the Mechlab, DURING the match. During that 15 minute period after you hear Betty tell you that all systems are nominal. That, right there, is the only period of time that matters. RnR doesn't impact that period of time.

Edited by Tina Benoit, 09 April 2015 - 05:05 PM.

[Satan n stuff]

DaZur, on 30 March 2015 - 02:17 PM, said:

5... I actually like the glass.

Checking since I made some changes to my config recently, I have it turned on. There are some combinations of maps and mechs where it gets really annoying, but I can still see despite that so I'm not going to disable it.

Edited by Satan n stuff, 30 March 2015 - 03:00 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 March 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

by not thinking symmetrically? Thats why one mech has better speed, or agility, or armor...superior hardpoint placement, etc.

I fail to see how that's going to help balance medium lasers when you can put two of them on a Raven and nine of them on a Hunchback.

If you're suggesting that the hardpoint placement is buggered, that's a matter of balancing chassis. Not weapons.

[Soy]

FupDup, on 30 March 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

RnR doesn't add "risk." It adds inconvenience, but not risk.

I think you're really naive about what RnR could be. You're stuck in some sort of bubble about how it used to be. Let it go man.

For example lets take it to the logical conclusion for a sec - imagine Solaris mode where you lose and your mech is permanently destroyed. You don't think there is risk vs reward somewhere in there? And more importantly - you don't think it'd be hype as ****?

Extrapolate to CW while puffing a blunt, gg.

[Redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 09 April 2015 - 05:05 PM.

[Xetelian]

I'd like the quirks to encourage mech diversity and Repair Rearm is the dumbest game feature ever imagined.

[FupDup]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think you're really naive about what RnR could be. You're stuck in some sort of bubble about how it used to be. Let it go man.

For example lets take it to the logical conclusion for a sec - imagine Solaris mode where you lose and your mech is permanently destroyed. You don't think there is risk vs reward somewhere in there? And more importantly - you don't think it'd be hype as ****?

gg

Permanent mech loss would probably suck pretty hard for all but the most hardened masochists. This would be especially true for mechs like heroes that are only available with real life money...$30+ in real life money down the drain because your pixel robot died in an arena.

[Soy]

Yet people want this game to be competitive, right. And how it's financially ******, right.

[FupDup]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

Yet people want this game to be competitive, right. And how it's financially ******, right.

I'm pretty sure that permanent unit loss isn't a prerequisite for a game being competitive.

Making people re-buy their mechs after every loss wouldn't fix the game's financial standing. It might make it worse, depending on how many people didn't like that change...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Soy, on 30 March 2015 - 03:07 PM, said:

Yet people want this game to be competitive, right. And how it's financially ******, right.

Competition and RnR are not mutually inclusive......in fact I'm pretty sure all the best competitive games actually don't have it.....