102 replies to this topic

[zeves]

If we want info warfare, let only lights have radar quick and easy way to do it, sounds like a great idea Russ you should do it.

[Karl Streiger]

TKSax, on 17 April 2016 - 09:40 PM, said:

And even just for lasers it was stupid, Russ said it will never come back, it did nothing to improve the game at all when it was tested out and it was rightfully dropped.

simple because of the maps and the average fighting distance.
Afaik it did only reduce the damage after a specific range most fights are at lower ranges. So it didn't really hurt.

But when you make it for all weapons and all ranges the outcome may be different

[Khobai]

Quote

And even just for lasers it was stupid, Russ said it will never come back, it did nothing to improve the game at all when it was tested out and it was rightfully dropped.

Again its not the same thing. That was for lasers only.

Different ideas are different.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Again its not the same thing. That was for lasers only.

Different ideas are different.

Adding it to all weapons is even stupider.

If you want info warfare to be an aspect, focus on the importance of positional data and making some sensors not simply LOS based.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2016 - 08:43 AM.

[TKSax]

Karl Streiger, on 18 April 2016 - 06:58 AM, said:

simple because of the maps and the average fighting distance.
Afaik it did only reduce the damage after a specific range most fights are at lower ranges. So it didn't really hurt.

But when you make it for all weapons and all ranges the outcome may be different

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Again its not the same thing. That was for lasers only.

Different ideas are different.

Just because it would apply to all weapons would not make it differnt, just more broad.

It was a terriable idea added nothing to the game except complexity that is not needed, it would have hurt new people in the game far more, it would make ECM the must have module. Having damage tied to Targeting info is just a terrible idea.

[Gas Guzzler]

MadCat02, on 17 April 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

"You have absolutely no clue on what you're talking about"
"and Probably"
"and Probably"
"and putting standart engines" - Which is the opposite of what I said actually .


You might be using the word stupid very loosely for someone who is trying to insult me 2 with lines of meaningless text .

Regardless of his word choice, the objective points he makes are 100% correct.

Khobai, on 17 April 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Theres no role warfare at all in this game. Thats why everyone just defaults to playing heavies because they give you the best mix of all attributes.

The easiest way to make lights/mediums more relevant is to add proper sensor warfare. Damage should be reduced by 30% unless you have a target lock. And lights/mediums should have way better sensors than heavies/assaults. That would force heavies/assaults to depends on the lighter weight classes to maximize their damage.

What's funny is scouting is incredibly important in higher level group queue matches and competitive matches.

What is so ironic is how often people whine about no role warfare and the lack of importance of scouting when they wouldn't know what good scouting was if it hit them in the face. Matches can be won or lost on information about enemy positioning and mech loadouts, or lack thereof.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 18 April 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

If you want info warfare to be an aspect, focus on the importance of positional data and making some sensors not simply LOS based.

This right here would be awesome, and the epitome of information warfare.

You want to see more Commandos/Mist Lynxes used? Give them 600m radar without LOS (no missile locks though, just positional).

[Barantor]

TKSax, on 18 April 2016 - 08:46 AM, said:

Just because it would apply to all weapons would not make it differnt, just more broad.

It was a terriable idea added nothing to the game except complexity that is not needed, it would have hurt new people in the game far more, it would make ECM the must have module. Having damage tied to Targeting info is just a terrible idea.

I've got to disagree with you here TK mostly because we didn't see it in the wild and there is already so much complexity in this game that having to target isn't going to scare folks off (most don't like the mechlab tbh that I know).

The masses here, on twitter and on reddit can affect the game for good or bad.

The devs are very timid now with changes and it is kinda our fault, so we can't complain now if they are slow lol.

[Khobai]

Quote

What's funny is scouting is incredibly important in higher level group queue matches and competitive matches.

it might be important initially but it stops being important once you find the enemy. and sensors are never crucial because you can just spot enemy mechs with your eyeballs.

PGI needs to make scouting and sensors more important at every stage of the game. Not just the initial stage.

Edited by Khobai, 18 April 2016 - 09:09 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

it might be important initially but it stops being important once you find the enemy.

Wrong, keeping tabs on enemy movements is equally important. Which is not something the main body always sees.

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

and sensors are never crucial because you can just spot enemy mechs with your eyeballs.

Unlike seismic.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 18 April 2016 - 09:16 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Khobai, on 18 April 2016 - 09:07 AM, said:

it might be important initially but it stops being important once you find the enemy. and sensors are never crucial because you can just spot enemy mechs with your eyeballs.

PGI needs to make scouting and sensors more important at every stage of the game. Not just the initial stage.

Sometimes that is true, typically when the map is smaller and the match devolves into a close up brawl, then whichever team focuses fire better will win.

In larger maps with more ranged play, there is typically instances where all or part of the team disengages, and you are back to square one with scouting, and you need to figure out where the enemy is moving in order to get your team into an advantageous position.

Even after all that, the value of the ability to flank at 140 kph should not be discounted.

[TKSax]

Barantor, on 18 April 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

I've got to disagree with you here TK mostly because we didn't see it in the wild and there is already so much complexity in this game that having to target isn't going to scare folks off (most don't like the mechlab tbh that I know).

The masses here, on twitter and on reddit can affect the game for good or bad.

The devs are very timid now with changes and it is kinda our fault, so we can't complain now if they are slow lol.

If you played it on the test server you would have experienced how bad of an idea it was.

Edited by TKSax, 18 April 2016 - 09:52 AM.

[Wintersdark]

TKSax, on 17 April 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

They tried that on the test server and it was junk.

No, they didn't. They tried having no lock reduce laser optimal range, which is different.

Also, most who said it was junk never tried it.

I think the concept was great, but the lasers only aspect, not so much. Range DOES work to reduce damage though, so it certainly did matter.

TKSax, on 18 April 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

If you played it on the test server you would have experienced how bad of an idea it was.

again, the implementation was bad, the concept was not.

Edited by Wintersdark, 18 April 2016 - 10:11 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Wintersdark, on 18 April 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

again, the implementation was bad, the concept was not.

Even the implementation without the laser portion was rough, trading at mid range was suddenly like trading outside sensor range with ERLL. You weren't quite sure how much damage you were doing until the enemy started to back-off essentially. Its impact was minimal as far as I could tell.

Like I have said many times, trying to make radar or the info gathered from radar more scarce doesn't help info warfare, it pushes it to be less useful than it currently is and sight even more important.

[Aresye]

Saltychipmunk, on 18 April 2016 - 03:38 AM, said:

a team of kitfoxes? no thats redundant and stupid. but a single kitfox designed for support that hangs around with the heavies is actually quite useful.

its smaller engine pretty much demands you use the extra weight for support stuff.

im trying to figure out why you went immediately for the 3 x kitfox scenario when when at most you would only want one.

Reread what I said.

"where the other team goes, "Look at that, they brought a 3 AMS, ECM, Kit Fox."

"A" as in "singular," and "Kit Fox" as in, "not more than one." Otherwise I would have said, "brought 3 AMS, ECM, Kit Foxes."

And no, a single Kit Fox is not useful outside of Tier Derp. The entire concept of a "support mech" is purely fantasy, and exists solely to make bad players feel good about themselves.

[Gas Guzzler]

Aresye, on 18 April 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

And no, a single Kit Fox is not useful outside of Tier Derp. The entire concept of a "support mech" is purely fantasy, and exists solely to make bad players feel good about themselves.

I got a sadistic pleasure out of running one when people were leveling their Archers.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 April 2016 - 05:06 PM, said:

Actually yes, yes I can blame people for playing mechs that are superior.

If you know something is broken in a game, why the hell do you gravitate towards it? Is it so god damned important that you win every single game that you abuse broken mechanics, or play the game in obviously unsporting or unintended ways?

Same goes for "meta" builds... just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should, and this "I'm only using what's effective" mentality is what hurts the community more than anything.

But it's fine... I've been on this crusade for years, and I'm tired OP, I'm tired of pointing out the idiocy. You are the people who continue to use the broken, then complain about it being broken... I just keep pointing out the fact that you keep doing it at this point.

That's like saying I should be using the issue boots the Army gives me because they're adequate and not buying my own that are fsr superior.

Or that I should use a S&W instead of my CZ75 for shooting competitions.

Why should I use inferior equipment at the behest of someone else?

Is winning important?
A.) Yes; don't use inferior tools.
B.) No; use whatever suits your fancy.

Have I shot shooting competitions using my .38 snub, absolutely? But I didn't go in expecting to win. I went in to have fun with a .38 in a USPSA match.

Me taking a .38 and expecting to win against SIGs and CZ75s is akin to taking a Vindicator into group queue.

I don't subscribe to someone else's idea of fun.

[Darian DelFord]

DovisKhan, on 17 April 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

While the IIC and Oxide argument is something to debate


The fact that with a 35 tonner you can pack 6 LRMs and function as a very mobile JJ equipped LRM boat sure nails it, IIC is the best ton for ton missile platform

Seriously you are using that as your argument? Please join me in a private match with me in my Oxide and you in your Jenner IIC with 6 LRM 5's.

Just PM me when you want to set it up, I will stream it live and record the match for posterity sake.

[Cupid and Psyche _]

DovisKhan, on 17 April 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

While the IIC and Oxide argument is something to debate


The fact that with a 35 tonner you can pack 6 LRMs and function as a very mobile JJ equipped LRM boat sure nails it, IIC is the best ton for ton missile platform

Uhm...

[Darian DelFord]

DovisKhan, on 17 April 2016 - 10:55 PM, said:

While the IIC and Oxide argument is something to debate


The fact that with a 35 tonner you can pack 6 LRMs and function as a very mobile JJ equipped LRM boat sure nails it, IIC is the best ton for ton missile platform

Quote

DovisKhan

Member Since 07 Jan 2016

Never mind this explains is.

[WarHippy]

Khobai, on 17 April 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

And I said that the role of sensor warfare needs to be greatly expanded.

Since damage is the one thing players care about more than anything, reducing damage of all weapons by 30% when you dont have a sensor lock is the best and easiest way to make sensors actually matter. Then all you have to do is make sure lights/mediums have significantly longer sensor range than heavies/assaults to create a dependency on lighter mechs.

It might be the easiest way, but it is also terrible game play and way too similar to the crap they tried on the test server awhile back that was pretty damn near universally despised.