Jump to content

Comstar Intercepts For 09/02/2015


47 replies to this topic

#41 Sevronis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2021 Top 12 Qualifier
  • CS 2021 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 216 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 03 September 2015 - 06:53 AM

View PostDocta Pain, on 03 September 2015 - 01:56 AM, said:

HA! Why don't they just delete the announcement about a "Significant Change to ECM" and be done with it. If they're not going to carry through with their commitments... Why participate in Broken Warfare?



Who said they aren't going through with this? They stated its going to be part of the initial new balances changes that they are implementing, but they've already said it MIGHT be either close to the end of this year or early 2016 depending on progress of other planned projects.

#42 AdamBaines

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,384 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 08:29 AM

Man I hate that I missed this event as this is EXACTLY what myself and many others have suggested. Wish there was a bit more heads up, but now I know to keep a lookout in this subforum.

Does anyone know if they released this on Twitter as well?

#43 AdamBaines

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,384 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 08:34 AM

View PostKay Wolf, on 02 September 2015 - 03:41 PM, said:

When I said Objective Based Warfare, this is NOT what I meant. Sure, fighting for a world is a massive objective, but I was talking about individual objectives on the playable maps, which would eventually lead up to the taking of a world, but would also allow for raids and smaller skirmishes than planetary takeovers. It's a start, PGI, but ONLY a start.


I agree but its baby steps. I really like this planetary "event" or "objective". Along with trying to revitalize two low population factions, they also seem to see what people like more....MC or Cbills, as someone else pointed out before.

Another step in the right direction. Now lets keep stepping forwards PGI. And take Kay's suggestion of in game objectives and start a mini Pilot.

#44 quantaca

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 107 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 11:22 AM

Yep have agree that the actual implementation is a bit "off" but the idea is there and they need to build on this

#45 Boaz Roshak

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 96 posts
  • LocationApperently , back on the island

Posted 03 September 2015 - 12:04 PM

Here is an idea or 4

Make CW have some sort of meaning and relevance.

Planet turn over is stupid to be polite, it should be a 24 hour cycle broken into 3 time segments best 2 out of 3 takes the world.

Damage done to objectives, turrets and such should be rewarded not just what is done to mechs.

Stop letting people take trial mechs into CW it suck for people who find tem on there team and I can not imagine I makes for a good gaming experience for the player. So just stop it.

#46 Suvara

    Member

  • Pip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 14 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 12:10 PM

it might have worked in Marik if it was something like 2 mechbays. 4 millions cbills for intense grinding with uncertain result? Not worth it.

#47 GI Journalist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Senior Major
  • Senior Major
  • 595 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 12:55 PM

View PostKoshirou, on 03 September 2015 - 02:36 AM, said:

Though come to think of it... the "logic" of lamenting the Clan Wolf incursions and the fall of the world of Liao, then ordering an attack on the Davion-held world of Sarna matches well with the portrayal of Romano Liao as written by Stackpole.


The sublime logic of our beloved Chancellor Romano Liao is beyond question!

Long live Romano!

#48 Ironically Ironclad Irony

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • 192 posts

Posted 03 September 2015 - 02:25 PM

Is Romano the great great great great great...great great grandson of one George W Bush because that would REALLY make sense...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users