551 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Quote

PvE generally doesnt offer much in the way of rewards or compelling gameplay.

A lot of those PvE players aren't interested in the rewards or compelling gameplay. They want storylines, immersion and other non-competitive things that they can do without anyone else. They might stick their nose into PvP from time to time, but won't stay there long only if that's the only way they can advance what they need.

If World of Warships had something better in their PvE section instead of weakly rewarded PvP play against AIs, they'd really have something.

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 27 December 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

That right there is the biggest "flaw" in most of the players I see. They want to play as a solo player and not as a team.

That, which leads to a total inability to look objectively at what happened and take responsibility for their part in it. It's always what everyone else did wrong. How they didn't work together (read: Do what the player thought they should).

[Kraftwerkedup]

Quote

compelling gameplay. They want storylines, immersion

Ok well then our idea of compelling gameplay isnt the same. To me storylines and immersion, IS compelling gameplay, and PvE in F2P games doesnt offer that.

[Wintersdark]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

A lot of those PvE players aren't interested in the rewards or compelling gameplay. They want storylines, immersion and other non-competitive things that they can do without anyone else. They might stick their nose into PvP from time to time, but won't stay there long only if that's the only way they can advance what they need.

If World of Warships had something better in their PvE section instead of weakly rewarded PvP play against AIs, they'd really have something.

This is me.

When PvE happens, I'll be gone from PvP pretty much entirely. I detest PvP, mostly because I really hate how some people get when competitive drive overrides sportsmanship.

I don't care about rewards, and I generally feel good storylines lead to far more compelling gameplay than endless deathmatch PvP, but I recognize that's just me (and many others, mind you).

I really, REALLY cannot wait for a PvE campaign.

Kraftwerkedup, on 27 December 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

Ok well then our idea of compelling gameplay isnt the same. To me storylines and immersion, IS compelling gameplay, and PvE in F2P games doesnt offer that.

Doesn't right now, but that doesn't mean it can't. Honestly, I'd be perfectly fine with paying for a PvE campaign - make it just like buying any of the other Mechwarrior games was, for example - a AAA title purchase, I'm fine with that.

[Kraftwerkedup]

You really REALLY will never get a PvE campaign.

If we get something even remotely like WarThunder, ill be amazed.

Theyre really just unlinked free for alls, with a paragraph of lore, against AI, with specified vehicles in the match. IS there a F2P game with compelling PvE gameplay?

MW4 Mercs is still totally worth your time. Someone needs to make a better HD pack. Sadly I think even that games campaign is pretty weak. MW2 Mercs was good, but its just too long ago. I could live with the graphics if it was both dynamic and the enemy actually had full locations, RTs and LTs, rear, etc.

There exists an MW2 Mercs with a dynamic campaign but its hard to find, and its wont work on modern computers because patching it, breaks the dynamic campaign.

Bummer really.

I think most of us grognards want First Person 'Against the Bot' Megamek campaign gameplay.

Edited by Kraftwerkedup, 27 December 2015 - 04:55 PM.

[Sandpit]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 04:38 PM, said:

A lot of those PvE players aren't interested in the rewards or compelling gameplay. They want storylines, immersion and other non-competitive things that they can do without anyone else. They might stick their nose into PvP from time to time, but won't stay there long only if that's the only way they can advance what they need.

If World of Warships had something better in their PvE section instead of weakly rewarded PvP play against AIs, they'd really have something.

you can have all of that without PvE. It's just a matter of PGI taking over as a GM and actually playing a campaign for things like CW. You don't need PvE to tell a story.

I'm all for adding certain PvE additions to add to immersion, but they're nowhere near as important in my opinion as taking control of CW and running it as an actual campaign and telling the story of the IS wars. PvE isn't needed for any of that, but it would definitely be fun. With that said, PGI needs to do some work on other areas (which Phase 3 looks like it might be laying groundwork for them) of CW before delving into that.

It looks like PGI is now moving in the "right" direction for many and I'm hopeful.

I agree wholeheartedly with implementing an economy and repair and rearm fees for CW as well. I think it's something that's really needed in any kind of persistent game environment. Without it there are zero consequences to spamming ammo, running expensive builds and carelessly running in to suicide, etc.

[Livewyr]

I'm not sorry
Two direct fire mechs (that can click accurately) are better than an LRM boat and spotter.

Here is why:
LRMs, even if someone is spotting for you, are easy to avoid.
-They give a warning.
-They fly slow as hell.
-They can get chewed up by AMS.
-Spotting doesn't help against an ECM opponent.

(And even if they do it, it's like an LBX...)

Whereas;
Lasers are point, click, drag. Pick a component.
Ballistics are point, lead, click. Pick a component.

No warning. Nobody having to spot for you. (Dividing their attention)

A couple Gauss/Laser SCRs are a lot better than a LRM WHK/ACH combo...(and for 10 tons less..)

[Wintersdark]

Kraftwerkedup, on 27 December 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

You really REALLY will never get a PvE campaign.

If we get something even remotely like WarThunder, ill be amazed.

Theyre really just unlinked free for alls, with a paragraph of lore, against AI, with specified vehicles in the match. IS there a F2P game with compelling PvE gameplay?

MW4 Mercs is still totally worth your time. Someone needs to make a better HD pack. Sadly I think even that games campaign is pretty weak. MW2 Mercs was good, but its just too long ago. I could live with the graphics if it was both dynamic and the enemy actually had full locations, RTs and LTs, rear, etc.

There exists an MW2 Mercs with a dynamic campaign but its hard to find, and its wont work on modern computers because patching it, breaks the dynamic campaign.

Bummer really.

I think most of us grognards want First Person 'Against the Bot' Megamek campaign gameplay.

Will we? Probably not. Certainly not as F2P. But a single player campaign as a pay to play expansion is certainly possible. I can dream

[Kraftwerkedup]

Yeah I aint no one to crush no mans dream. I really want one too

[MischiefSC]

Kilo 40, on 27 December 2015 - 02:46 AM, said:

hilarious....

peak around corner, point, click, go back behind cover = "skillz"

vs

find target, lose target, find target, start to get lock, lose lock, start to get lock, lose lock, get lock, fire, immediately lose lock. get lock, fire, realize you have the wrong angle and the LRMs are hitting something, back away to get the correct angle, lose lock, watch mini map waiting for a lock, start to get lock on an ECM mech, waaaaaiiiittt ffffooorrr lllloooccckkk ttttoooo ccccoooommmppplllleeeettteee, fire, immediately lose lock. watch triple AMS kitfox eat up all your LRMs, reposition, get lock, keep lock, start firing on enemy mech brawling with a friendly mech, manage to keep locks and keep firing, end match with 12 assists and a couple of kills and in the top three for match score and damage, then get told you contributed nothing and all your kills were kill steals. = "low skill"

This is so incredibly disingenuous I have to wonder if you actually realize how dishonest you're being or you really, truly don't understand the difference?

Positioning is an iffy comparison. Doing LRMs *well* needs compared.to doing direct fire *well*. Both live or die on positioning. However LRM positioning Isa bit more forgiving as you don't require LoS to the target, just a clear fire range to their position. Obviously DF requires this as well, just that you can only use LoS, not just "low obstructions". However a LRM boat is largely useless at close range and so needs to stay with the pack. Still easier with an LRM boat but not much.

The fundamental difference is that DF is skill capped by you, your ability to aim, manage heat and put damage where you want it. I DF I'd managed by your opponents ability to avoid/counter IDF. The skill difference between winning DF trades and getting locks is a big gulf and one bridged by ability of the attcker, not the defender.

So yes. Skill cap on DF is higher. If someone doesn't understand that, how and why then I'm not sure a forum has the scope and depth to teach that much info about how this game works.

[Sandpit]

Wintersdark, on 27 December 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

Will we? Probably not. Certainly not as F2P. But a single player campaign as a pay to play expansion is certainly possible. I can dream

I'd like a single-player, I'd love one honestly, but I want MWO PvP multiplayer Btech first.

[Kraftwerkedup]

I want the game from the Battletech Pods.

With an updated engine.

Charge me 1,000 dollars, I dont care. Thats what I want. With all the options and management from Megamek.

Also. World peace.

[Wintersdark]

Sandpit, on 27 December 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

I'd like a single-player, I'd love one honestly, but I want MWO PvP multiplayer Btech first.

Yeah, I respect that. I don't agree, because I hate PvP, but I get the viewpoint and can't argue it

[MischiefSC]

Kjudoon, on 27 December 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

So you want 1000m slow streaks?

LRMS needles to be direct fire as in flat, fast trajectory. Should still have locks to tighten pattern and track moving targets. Then give it slow indirect fire on TAGed / NARCed targets with a wide spread.

Make their primary use comparable to direct fire and IDF require dedicated spotter and less accuracy. Sorta like tabletop.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

This is so incredibly disingenuous I have to wonder if you actually realize how dishonest you're being or you really, truly don't understand the difference?

Positioning is an iffy comparison. Doing LRMs *well* needs compared.to doing direct fire *well*. Both live or die on positioning. However LRM positioning Isa bit more forgiving as you don't require LoS to the target, just a clear fire range to their position. Obviously DF requires this as well, just that you can only use LoS, not just "low obstructions". However a LRM boat is largely useless at close range and so needs to stay with the pack. Still easier with an LRM boat but not much.

The fundamental difference is that DF is skill capped by you, your ability to aim, manage heat and put damage where you want it. I DF I'd managed by your opponents ability to avoid/counter IDF. The skill difference between winning DF trades and getting locks is a big gulf and one bridged by ability of the attcker, not the defender.

So yes. Skill cap on DF is higher. If someone doesn't understand that, how and why then I'm not sure a forum has the scope and depth to teach that much info about how this game works.

I don't think the skill cap is "higher" just different. Using lurms for more than just straight up damage like I described above is where lurms really start to shine and come into their own league doing things no other weapon can such as suppression fire and area denial. TO use them effectively and beyond simple damage I think the skill cap is actually higher, but to use them strictly for damage, the skill cap is much lower.

Kraftwerkedup, on 27 December 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

I want the game from the Battletech Pods.

With an updated engine.

Charge me 1,000 dollars, I dont care. Thats what I want. With all the options and management from Megamek.

Also. World peace.

Can you imagine if CW was run on a similar format to what we used to do with the MewWar servers for MM???

[MischiefSC]

Except that your success with LRMs at upper levels is driven by your targets use of counters and terrain, not by your skill. With DF there is no "counter". If you can shoot them they can shoot you. It comes down to aim, accuracy and timing.

The other skills, like positioning etc are not harder for IDF than df. The difference is required exposure to fire and accuracy of the shot vs just getting a lock.

Df, skill cap is all you. Idf, skill cap flips to target skill not yours.

[Damia Savon]

Kraftwerkedup, on 26 December 2015 - 06:58 PM, said:

Thats my point!

So anyone asking me to help them have fun, when theyre not being as competitive as they could be, which can impact MY fun, is a jerk.

Youre responsible for your own fun dude. Ill be responsible for mine.

Only Jerk here dude is you. Ultra competitive metaabusing arseholes who don't give a crap about the game at all but rather their own personal jerkoff fest. You and your kind ruined this game by whining and abusing every weapon system until nothing works like it is supposed to and the mighty medium laser is meta. Congrats. If you keep it up, the only thing people will take are small lasers.. oh wait.. .

[ChewBaka]

MauttyKoray, on 26 December 2015 - 09:58 PM, said:

I play LRM mechs sometimes and they are an amazingly destructive weapon if used correctly. Without locks you can't LRM people, so if your teammate refuses to hold locks and tells you to 'get your own locks' just report them in game. One of the strengths of LRMs is hitting an opponent that can't hit you. You WILL get focused if the enemy can see you.

Wait, what? Not holding locks or telling others to 'get their own locks' is grounds for reporting people in game?

Wouldn't that also make 'locks pls' also grounds for reporting people?

Stop abusing the report function you idiots.

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 27 December 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

Except that your success with LRMs at upper levels is driven by your targets use of counters and terrain, not by your skill. With DF there is no "counter". If you can shoot them they can shoot you. It comes down to aim, accuracy and timing.

The other skills, like positioning etc are not harder for IDF than df. The difference is required exposure to fire and accuracy of the shot vs just getting a lock.

Df, skill cap is all you. Idf, skill cap flips to target skill not yours.

counters and terrain go with the skill level of using them along with being able to know the maps well enough to choose good positions and anticipate where the battle will rotate to. That way you're always in your team's rear lines, still in range of all enemy units, and able to continue barraging.

Even Tier 1 players stop and react when they get an incoming missile warning. They don't know if it's 5 missiles or 500 hundred missiles so what do they have to do?
Stop fighting, stop shooting your teammates and find cover effectively removing them from a good position and the entire fight for a brief period of time.
That's where skill comes in with lurms. When you start using them for something other than damage. When you figure out how to do that proficiently, the things you can do with them and the skill cap for them increases almost exponentially.

If I can turn around an entire lance from flanking us from 800 meters out, that's not a "minor" thing. That's tying up 4 enemy mechs with a few lurms and preventing them from getting to the fight.

Skill of a different type is what I'm saying.

[ChewBaka]

KinLuu, on 27 December 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

Lurmboats have decent synergy with dakka mechs, or other builds with high facetime.

But they have horrible synergy with poking or brawling builds, as those have very little facetime.

And the meta currently favours builds with little facetime.

This is the most sensible thing said in this thread so far.

This is why LRM boats have to get their own locks and have no right to complain about it.

But I disagree about the dakka mech synergy. I don't face-tank either even in a dakka mech. I prefer hit-and-run tactics. I will hold my target only as long as the other team aren't paying attention to me. The moment they turn to face me, I'm changing position.