142 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

LordBraxton, on 06 June 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

You attacked my writing style, dismissed my opinions, and blathered about your supposed military expertise while trying to fit as many (what you obviously think are) impressive vocabulary words into your post as possible.

1/10

It's ok to express an opinion on a video game forum without a 50 page dissertation. Try addressing some of my points next time. also, here's another personal attack you can condescendingly reply to with another wall of garbage.

get out more.

Every advantage should cost in-game resources, not meta-game currency.

That's my opinion, I'll post it how I want to.

Correcting the way you post those unfounded opinions isn't "attacking" you - nor is my casual use of vocabulary some sort of put-on show. Accusing me of "blathering" about military experience I referenced indirectly as a direct response to your ownl attacks is just silly.

Disagreeing with silly assertions you made without support is hardly "dismissing your opinions," nor is dismissing an un-credible opinion some sort of misbehavior, as you imply. As for "condescension," if you do not want to be condescended to, it is advisable not to require your opponent to talk down in order to reach the level on which you are arguing. Arrogantly deriding people with insults and "because I say so" pronouncements and then accusing them of your own misbehavior when they respond is childishly sophistic and sadly common. You've barely tried to make any points, instead relying on personal attacks and rudeness in an attempt to distract me - but the ones you've made, I've debunked.

As for your latest unsupported opinion - we're talking about Battlemechs. They're all bought with meta-game currency - what then is your point?

[Novakaine]

Don't be this kid.
Wrong game.

[LordBraxton]

Void Angel, on 06 June 2015 - 09:03 PM, said:

As for your latest unsupported opinion - we're talking about Battlemechs. They're all bought with meta-game currency - what then is your point?

I'll ignore the rest of your ego trip for form's sake. Since this is the only part that actually addressed my opinion(and reason for wasting time in this thread.) The rest was made me laugh, especially when you emphasized your vocabulary use with 'casual.' Arm-chair generals are so funny. Let me upset you some more with my bolded huge text for lulz.

If this game was working properly, all of the battlemechs we buy for in-game currency would have no advantage over one another, and be equal in worth without having the same use. This idea was called role warfare.

All advantages should cost in game resources, not meta-game currency.

Edited by LordBraxton, 07 June 2015 - 05:09 AM.

[Tarogato]

I think consumables are critical in this game to overcome stalemates.

In a situation where an enemy locks themselves up in a strong tactical position and abuses it as a crutch, artillery and airstrikes can be employed to discourage this behaviour.

In a situation where your team is afraid to initiate a push or engage the enemy, a UAV lighting up targets can give them the confidence to move up and get the ball rolling.

Without these two tools, we would more frequently be stuck in situations where both teams are staring at one another from behind rock and neither one wants to break cover for fear of getting swarmed because it's unlikely that anybody will support them.

In fact, I'd add smoke screens. Deployable concealment would be great and expand the tactical repertoire available in the game.

[Escef]

LordBraxton, on 06 June 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

yeah because spamming an instant cast beacon that calls in AOE magic missiles after a couple seconds is ******* harcore tactical simulation elements man.

Magic Missiles? What, you mean like the spell in D&D that does low damage but always hits? Yeah, I wish arty strikes were that good.

LordBraxton, on 06 June 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

There should be NO ADVANTAGES that do not cost CRITICAL SLOTS OR TONNAGE.

It's not an "advantage" if everyone can do it. Spend 40k c-bills unless you actually want to play on an uneven field.

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

I think consumables are critical in this game to overcome stalemates.

In a situation where an enemy locks themselves up in a strong tactical position and abuses it as a crutch, artillery and airstrikes can be employed to discourage this behaviour.

In a situation where your team is afraid to initiate a push or engage the enemy, a UAV lighting up targets can give them the confidence to move up and get the ball rolling.

Without these two tools, we would more frequently be stuck in situations where both teams are staring at one another from behind rock and neither one wants to break cover for fear of getting swarmed because it's unlikely that anybody will support them.

Unfortunately, some people here think MWO should be just like this:

Tarogato, on 07 June 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

In fact, I'd add smoke screens. Deployable concealment would be great and expand the tactical repertoire available in the game.

I've bee asking for that for quite a while now.

[Tarogato]

Mystere, on 07 June 2015 - 06:26 AM, said:

Unfortunately, some people here think MWO should be just like this:

And it was, for a while, before PGI hotfixed it out:

[Nick86]

LordBraxton, on 06 June 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

yeah because spamming an instant cast beacon that calls in AOE magic missiles after a couple seconds is ******* harcore tactical simulation elements man.

Consumables are dumb as hell, the way they function is stupid, and the way they are purchased and equipped is imbalanced.

There should be NO ADVANTAGES that do not cost CRITICAL SLOTS OR TONNAGE.

The whole module system is grind padding ******** that widens the gap between new players, and us vets who drive them away playing to PGIs terrible systems.

I've just decided to stop selling my famous blue magic crystals on the dark web; if this is the effect it has on people, I don't want any part of it, not even for the mega $. I'm sorry man.. So sorry.

[Nick86]

Tarogato, on 07 June 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

I think consumables are critical in this game to overcome stalemates.

In a situation where an enemy locks themselves up in a strong tactical position and abuses it as a crutch, artillery and airstrikes can be employed to discourage this behaviour.

In a situation where your team is afraid to initiate a push or engage the enemy, a UAV lighting up targets can give them the confidence to move up and get the ball rolling.

Without these two tools, we would more frequently be stuck in situations where both teams are staring at one another from behind rock and neither one wants to break cover for fear of getting swarmed because it's unlikely that anybody will support them.

In fact, I'd add smoke screens. Deployable concealment would be great and expand the tactical repertoire available in the game.

A speaker of truth we have here.. There should be MORE, varied consumables like EMPs, mines.. Etc, not less.Then we'll see tactics. Maybe we can even have a couple more slots? Think of the fun!

[LT. HARDCASE]

Mudhutwarrior, on 06 June 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

I like em' UAVs are obvious for the c-bills a properly placed one can generate.

How often to you get 40k plus profits from a UAV? Never is the only answer.

[Mystere]

Kevjack, on 07 June 2015 - 06:47 AM, said:

How often to you get 40k plus profits from a UAV? Never is the only answer.

You're not seeing the profits because you are looking at things from a one-dimensional standpoint.

[PurpleNinja]

I think it makes no sense. Why I'm not allowed to call a second air strike while my teammate can. Aren't we in the same team?

[Nick86]

I just want to point out that the USA's military uses drones, satellites etc all the time (think uavs) and they don't even have f***ing mechs let alone critical slot restrictions to deal with so I'm not sure what OP here is on about. Irony is, in real life some guy is controlling them just like it's a computer game in the safety of a comfy chair back at base with his coffee. I wonder I he has a Tukkayid banner and a Cataphract statue.. Hmm..

Nothing to see here folks..

Kevjack, on 07 June 2015 - 06:47 AM, said:

How often to you get 40k plus profits from a UAV? Never is the only answer.

.. Unless you use that UAV well enough to give your team enough of an advantage to enhance all of your performance where otherwise, ceteris paribus, you would have tanked. I play chess.

[Triordinant]

Just a reminder: consumables were NOT created to add tactical depth. They were created as a cbill sink to encourage players to buy MC.

[Nick86]

And?

[Shadow Magnet]

Nick86, on 07 June 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

A speaker of truth we have here.. There should be MORE, varied consumables like EMPs, mines.. Etc, not less.Then we'll see tactics. Maybe we can even have a couple more slots? Think of the fun!

I fully support that! More choices, more strategies, more fun!

I don't really get all the bitching about consumables. I had a problem with air strikes and UAV when I was new to game. These days, UAV gets shot down usually in less than 5 seconds and I keep moving all the time so I very rarely become the target of an arty or air strike.

And why do people keep suggesting "to fix this problem you only have to redesign abc", which means reworking an entire major aspect of the game (or even several of them). Just like PGI will ever do that, with the baby steps in development their can obviously take. They are not even able to keep up the small incremental quirk balancing they promised.

[Nick86]

Shadow Magnet, on 07 June 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

I fully support that! More choices, more strategies, more fun!

I don't really get all the bitching about consumables. I had a problem with air strikes and UAV when I was new to game. These days, UAV gets shot down usually in less than 5 seconds and I keep moving all the time so I very rarely become the target of an arty or air strike.

And why do people keep suggesting "to fix this problem you only have to redesign abc", which means reworking an entire major aspect of the game (or even several of them). Just like PGI will ever do that, with the baby steps in development their can obviously take. They are not even able to keep up the small incremental quirk balancing they promised.

Exactly. As much as we're all f***ed off in one way or another with the game having spent hundreds of $ on it, whining about things as easily mitigated like enemy consumables is p!ss in the wind at best and in my view both lame and even childish. I just read a post from a user about what they wanted MWO to be when they first started playing. I would much rather the forum users campaign for a more immersive, tactical game the likes of which that player was asking for, than this rubbish. Consumables, if used well can be awesomely tactical. Half the problem we have is players not thinking, using the map, communicating, analysing evolving situations - having someone post that consumables erode 'tactics' speaks volumes in itself.

Damn, I'm in a foul mood! Apologies for being overly harsh!

Edited by Nick86, 07 June 2015 - 08:18 AM.

[Kenoshi]

happy mech, on 06 June 2015 - 10:05 AM, said:

imo light mechs should be better as scouts rather than as dps machines, with uavs (and ecm, seismic, 2.0-3.5 sec lock, 800m sensor range) this role is negligible

assaults too could be great pushers and something you need to protect for this purpose, but with arti and strikes anybody can push, not to mention the headshots

so imo the consumables and some modules are doing too much work that should be carried out by mechs and they should be more dependant on each others roles to work as a team

Problem is a lot of lights don't play scout role. They put on ECMs and go solo hunting AFKers or the odd assault that goes off on their own. I rarely see lights that go NARC or TAG some mech.

Call me an a$$ but sometimes I'll purposely hang back at the base and jump on idiot lights that show up...Get a kill or two, then rejoin the party.

[masCh]

Artilleries : Make it cost more than a loss payout. If you used artilleries, you better make sure you win to recover the costs.

[Mystere]

PurpleNinja, on 07 June 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

I think it makes no sense. Why I'm not allowed to call a second air strike while my teammate can. Aren't we in the same team?

People cried loudly about the strikes. And you know how PGI reacts to those who cry loudly.

Triordinant, on 07 June 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

Just a reminder: consumables were NOT created to add tactical depth. They were created as a cbill sink to encourage players to buy MC.

Just because they were not meant to be does not mean the players can't repurpose them.