53 replies to this topic

[Tuann]

i'll answer short :

@OP : Hahahahahahhahahahahahahaha, snif, ha... hahaha,.. hahahahahhahahahahahaha

thank you

[9thDeathscream]

Mystere, on 13 September 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

Instead of needlessly messing with firing rates and weapon groups, why not just fix convergence?

I might be wrong but convergence is necessary for HSR.

[Supersmacky]

No personal insult to the OP, but yet another "ban this, ban that" thread...seriously?!? Every time I see one of these oh so specific ban threads I can't help but think: "yep...that player got killed by x game mechanic"

Here's some concepts to deal with high alphas:

• Don't face tank a boat unless you can take what they dish out and give greater amounts back
  
• Work as a team to take a boat down
  
• Maneuverability is your friend against a high alpha mech
  
• Cover is also your friend against a high alpha mech
  
• Heat is the enemy of a high alpha mech
  
• Positioning and waiting for your moment against a high alpha mech are essential
  
• Learn the mech and what a player had to give up in order to get that high alpha mech...knowledge is power

Again, I mean no insult. I just have a core principle against banning being the answer to problems unless there is no other alternative. It just seems to me that all these "ban this, ban that" threads come from a place where a player 1) is taking things way to seriously and 2) has not learned how to deal with tactic/build/weapon X. It is a mentality that ruins games and excludes a part of the player population because someone didn't like what someone else could do that was allowed as a core mechanic. Good grief! Learn to make suggestions that don't revolve around the idea of "banning" someone's build or play style choices.

[Mole]

I really don't want to read through all the responses here so I'll just chuck in my two cents and apologize in advance if it's already been said.

All this idea is going to do is make macros actually give people an unfair advantage since you could set up a macro to fire all of your weapons in an entire group within milliseconds of each other effectively making it to where people who have macros set up can still alpha strike while the rest of us can't anymore. Then people would have legitimate cause to complain about macros being cheating rather than the whiners we see today who think macros that are so minor that I barely even notice them being cheating.

Edited by Mole, 14 September 2016 - 06:32 AM.

[Myantra]

Supersmacky, on 14 September 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

Again, I mean no insult. I just have a core principle against banning being the answer to problems unless there is no other alternative. It just seems to me that all these "ban this, ban that" threads come from a place where a player 1) is taking things way to seriously and 2) has not learned how to deal with tactic/build/weapon X. It is a mentality that ruins games and excludes a part of the player population because someone didn't like what someone else could do that was allowed as a core mechanic. Good grief! Learn to make suggestions that don't revolve around the idea of "banning" someone's build or play style choices.

I concur. A good example would be people calling the Kodiak-3 OP. It is not OP, it is just doing doling out damage because people face tank it like they are going to bring it down with a few large pulse lasers or SRM's before it tears them apart. Unless you are in an assault that can trade with a dakka Kodiak-3, reposition and hit it from another angle.

Boating is just the nature of a MechWarrior game that allows individual loadout customization via mechlab. Boating is even included in lore. Nova, Supernova, and Longbow are all boats in their primary variants. As you point out, you always have to give up something in the pursuit of high alpha or boat building, and that is usually something that can be exploited to either kill them or neutralize their effectiveness.

I actually consider this game to be balanced rather well, especially in comparison to its predecessors. Most of the weapon choices are viable. All of the weight classes are viable, as are most of the Mechs. A light can actually kill something other than just another light, under the right circumstances.

[Mole]

Myantra, on 14 September 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

I concur. A good example would be people calling the Kodiak-3 OP. It is not OP, it is just doing doling out damage because people face tank it like they are going to bring it down with a few large pulse lasers or SRM's before it tears them apart.

Ah yes, the "Kodiaks are OP and ruined this game!" crowd. I've honestly never felt seriously threatened by a Kodiak. Not now, not ever. You know why? Because I don't give them the facetime that they require to pump me full of their double tap ACs. Only time a KDK-3 gets me is if I am in something slow and the Kodiak straight up charges right to me. And doing so would be a death sentence to the Kodiak unless I have gotten myself out of position through my own stupidity or my entire team is already dead in which case I'm probably screwed anyway.

[RestosIII]

Imperius, on 13 September 2016 - 11:51 PM, said:

Night night I'll take on the Stars while you sleep

I applaud you on using that specific gif. Always a fan of that star man.

dervishx5, on 13 September 2016 - 11:56 PM, said:

You believe your petty Spiderman memes can match my power? Fool.

Imperius, on 14 September 2016 - 12:28 AM, said:

When a normie calls me a weeb

I prefer this one.

[Felbombling]

Mystere, on 13 September 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

Instead of needlessly messing with firing rates and weapon groups, why not just fix convergence?

Fairly certain that PGI have stated they cannot get away from pin-point convergence.

Supersmacky, on 14 September 2016 - 06:05 AM, said:

It just seems to me that all these "ban this, ban that" threads come from a place where a player 1) is taking things way to seriously and 2) has not learned how to deal with tactic/build/weapon X. It is a mentality that ruins games and excludes a part of the player population because someone didn't like what someone else could do that was allowed as a core mechanic. Good grief! Learn to make suggestions that don't revolve around the idea of "banning" someone's build or play style choices.

Just throwing this out there... what if the core game mechanic that you think is so fantastic is actually the one thing that is ruining the game, but you cannot admit to it because you enjoy it so much? It is entirely possible that the build or play style choice you feel is in danger of being 'banned' only exists due to PGI's lack of foresight.

[Supersmacky]

StaggerCheck, on 14 September 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

Just throwing this out there... what if the core game mechanic that you think is so fantastic is actually the one thing that is ruining the game, but you cannot admit to it because you enjoy it so much? It is entirely possible that the build or play style choice you feel is in danger of being 'banned' only exists due to PGI's lack of foresight.

First: If you mean this as a serious question, you missed my point. I am not defending a game mechanic, I am against the 'ban happy nature' of people that don't like mechanic X because they cannot learn to counter it. It is the gut response of people that, from their subjective view, think it is OP. There is no empirical data to support their view against mechanic X/Weapon Y/Build Z is OP, they just don't like it and cannot figure out how to beat it (and, are generally, too proud to ask others/accept guidance). I am not stating that all things are perfect, just that the majority of these nerf this/that and ban this/that threads come from a irrational, illogical, fallacious position.

Second: Again, assuming you are asking seriously, there is no tactic, build, weapon, mechanic or play style in the game right now that cannot be countered. The game may be getting ruined by other factors, but I don't think believe the alpha mechanic is one of those factors since 1) everyone can do it and 2) if can be countered. If the high alpha was so OP, that is all you would see which is not the case. Especially in higher tiers which is interesting because I have seen high alpha build play styles more in lower tiers than in higher tiers (subjective observation, granted, but I think valid).

Side Notes: I generally build for DPS and not high alpha. Not in every case, but as a general rule because it fits my play style. I don't think high alphas are "fantastic", I just think they are what they are. I use them when I have to or if I build out a mech for that purpose. So, it isn't a matter of what I enjoy or don't enjoy. It is just a mechanic on balance with other mechanics--with advantages and draw backs. By the reasoning of the OP we could just as soon say "ban assaults because they can tank so much more damage than mediums and lights" or "ban UAVs because if they are directly overhead I can't do anything about them" or "nerf lights so they can't move so fast and I have trouble hitting them". Again, it is just my principle against automatically going to the "ban" or "nerf" hammer as a first action concerning a perceived problem. It is never "we need to take a look at this and see if there is a legitimate problem", just BAN IT!!! NERF IT!!! zOMG, iTz OPzzzz!

Legitimate mechanic issues? Fine, let's discuss. The OP's position and suggested 'fix', not so much.

[Mole]

I'm just gonna say that in tier 2 I see plenty of DPS builds alongside the alphawarriors. Each has a disadvantage and an advantage. I really don't view alpha striking as as big a problem as some people seem to think it is in this game.

[jaxjace]

what about mechs with only 1 weapon, or 2 weapons? or all the same weapons?

[RestosIII]

jaxjace, on 18 September 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

what about mechs with only 1 weapon, or 2 weapons? or all the same weapons?

Please let this thread stay dead. I don't want insane, horrible ideas like this on the main page, just in case PGI decides to read General for the first time ever.

[Michael Kail]

AphexTwin11, on 13 September 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

That is surely a creative idea, and would definitely change the game. However, I'm always intrigued by suggestions that defy a sort of chronological logic. What you're essentially saying, is that by year 3000-whatever, man has been able to craft 100 ton death machines that can walk on two legs without any problems, in all sorts of terrain (water, uphill, downhill), are powered by nuclear fusion, etc. etc. etc., yet they can't fire more than one weapon at the same time? We can fly to any planet of our choosing hoarding cargo weighing thousands of tons , yet firing three machine guns at once is where you draw the line? That just makes no sense to me.

Much agreed... We bend a lot of rules to make a sci-fi game, but limiting the weapons to "one at a time" is totally silly.

Think about it though. We can put humans safely on the moon, but we still can't safely put metal in a microwave oven.

[edited out a double-post]

Edited by Michael Kail, 18 September 2016 - 09:01 AM.

[Davers]

Another badly thought out, genuinely horrible idea, sprouting from an irrational fear of energy hard points.