155 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Ultimax, on 10 November 2016 - 06:03 AM, said:

You're doing a great job reading into my statements what you want to hear... but I guess this is what happens when two people discussing a topic are clearly not going to agree.

If I give you a Burger King Whopper and you like to put chocolate syrup on your burger... great have at it. But if you elect to eat it "un-modified" I will give you a free small bag of fries... That's incentifying. Nowhere did anyone deprive you or "force" you to eat it without chocolate syrup. You lose nothing but folks who do not bend to the meta are rewarded with a meager bonus.

That is what's being proposed... Please stop with feigning disenfranchisement.

TT lore and fluff is "fundamental foundation" by which the uniqueness of the IP is built upon. No... to translate that into a FPS environment requires some capitulation, which is what PGI has and will continue to do.

But no, you don't ignore it just because you find it nonsensical and constrictive...

Edited by DaZur, 10 November 2016 - 06:28 AM.

[Ultimax]

DaZur, on 10 November 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

If I give you a Burger King Whopper and you like to put chocolate syrup on your burger... great have at it. But if you elect to eat it "un-modified" I will give you a free small bag of fries... That's incentifying. Nowhere did anyone deprive you or "force" you to eat it without chocolate syrup. You lose nothing but folks who do not bend to the meta are rewarded with a meager bonus.

I gave you a reasoned and thoughtful response, and this is the best you can do?

Your metaphor fails because there are more than 2 choices on the menu and because it also assumes the "un-modified" version is actually designed well.

Most stock mechs are like getting the meat on the bottom, buns in the middle, ketchup on top, lettuce, pickles and tomatoes aren't even served at the same time as the burger. The cheese will be melted into a glass and you will drink it between bites.



The Warhammer.

Take away it's quirks and even the Torso mounted "bastardized" versions fail to compete with other good mechs that do not require quirks to be good and the general playerbase will simply shift away from the Warhammer as they have done repeatedly and consistently every time a mech has been nerfed to reduce how meta-capable it is.

It's that simple.

Edited by Ultimax, 10 November 2016 - 06:37 AM.

[DaZur]

Ultimax, on 10 November 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

I gave you a reasoned and thoughtful response, and this is the best you can do?

Your metaphor fails because there are more than 2 choices on the menu and because it also assumes the "un-modified" version is actually designed well.

Most stock mechs are like getting the meat on the bottom, buns in the middle, ketchup on top, lettuce, pickles and tomatoes aren't even served at the same time as the burger. The cheese will be melted into a glass and you will drink it between bites.

Not disagreeing that "stock" may ultimately be de-optimized... Conversely, not everything has to be meta-apex either. Still, no one is forcing you to eat the deconstructed sandwich. It's a choice of free will.

Ultimax, on 10 November 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

The Warhammer.

Take away it's quirks and even the Torso mounted "bastardized" versions fail to compete with other good mechs that do not require quirks to be good and the general playerbase will simply shift away from the Warhammer as they have done repeatedly and consistently every time a mech has been nerfed to reduce how meta-capable it is.

It's that simple.

Meta is not the "be-all end-all" in a game... Believe it or not, some folks actually enjoy playing with gimped mechs for challenge and or appreciation and acknowledgement of the mech iconic visage.

This game and this suggestion is not dealing with absolutes... it's a choice of free will that a player can make... Go all meta up the whazoo and benefit from min/max apex or acknowledge a mechs heritage and be rewarded for doing so.

Nothing is being taken away from anyone...

[Snowbluff]

DaZur, on 10 November 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

Meta is not the "be-all end-all" in a game... Believe it or not, some folks actually enjoy playing with gimped mechs for challenge and or appreciation and acknowledgement of the mech iconic visage.

Stock is not the "be-all end-all" in a game... Believe it or not, some folks actually enjoy playing with custom mechs to show what they're made of and or appreciation and acknowledgement of the game's customization.

[DaZur]

Snowbluff, on 10 November 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Stock is not the "be-all end-all" in a game... Believe it or not, some folks actually enjoy playing with custom mechs to show what they're made of and or appreciation and acknowledgement of the game's customization.

Thank-god... I'd hate it to be.

for the last time... this is not about "forcing" anyone to play a certain way or with specific configurations... This is about paying homage to a mech heritage / lineage and rewarding players who do not deviate grossly from it.

Edited by DaZur, 10 November 2016 - 07:29 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Here's the problem: You can't incentivize it enough. Not because it'll never be good, because you'll be effectively punishing people for not running stock. It's the same problem with Omnimech set bonuses, where the whole point is to customize their pods.

[DaZur]

Snowbluff, on 10 November 2016 - 07:50 AM, said:

Here's the problem: You can't incentivize it enough. Not because it'll never be good, because you'll be effectively punishing people for not running stock. It's the same problem with Omnimech set bonuses, where the whole point is to customize their pods.

This is the point I don't understand... Deprivation of something is punishment. Acknowledging someone for doing something is a reward.

To your point though, it has to be a meager "bonus" less it's effectively viewed as punishment as you infer... Like the rule of 8 for the Clan set.

Edited by DaZur, 10 November 2016 - 08:08 AM.

[Snowbluff]

There is something wrong when you've been given an option to customize, but the point is clearly made to not do it.

[invernomuto]

Metus regem, on 09 November 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

It doesn't need to deter, just reward playing a more lore correct build, and it doesn't need to be a massively game altering quirk, just a little additive.

Agreed. Like a big cooldown or reduced heat generation for PPCs mounted in Warhammer arms. Nothing game breaking but something that could rewards players following original "lore" builds.

Edited by invernomuto, 10 November 2016 - 08:33 AM.

[Ultimax]

DaZur, on 10 November 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

Meta is not the "be-all end-all" in a game... Believe it or not, some folks actually enjoy playing with gimped mechs for challenge and or appreciation and acknowledgement of the mech iconic visage.

If that is the case, then why are we even in a thread discussion about those same players lamenting about what OTHER PLAYERS are doing with the mech?


If you're content putting PPCs into your Warhammer and having it be sub-optimal for the appreciation and acknowledgement of the mech, then what exactly is the problem?

What is stopping you from doing that, right now?


Nothing would be taken away? Nonsense, the whole thrust of this thread is to take quirks away if they are not used to bow down to the altar of bad mech designs from TROs.

Edited by Ultimax, 10 November 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[Metus regem]

invernomuto, on 10 November 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Agreed. Like a big cooldown or reduced heat generation for PPCs mounted in Warhammer arms. Nothing game breaking but something that could rewards players following original "lore" builds.

As I said later, doing something like being able to use faction skins with out paying for them, while that mech is in a Lore correct / Lore inspired build would be more fair, as it would not offer game altering quriks. The "big cool-down or heat generation" quirks if arm mounted would be game altering, and would really be against what we are talking about, as it would be fundamentally altering the way the mech works, thus "punishing" players that don't do it. That is the very thing that Ultimax is saying is bad, and I agree with it, that doing that is a bad idea. What I'm suggesting, doesn't change the quirks, has no game play effect other than basic paint scheme, a 1500mc "rental" to be returned the moment you pull something like PPC's from the arms, or jam AC/s in the ST's.

[invernomuto]

Metus regem, on 10 November 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

As I said later, doing something like being able to use faction skins with out paying for them, while that mech is in a Lore correct / Lore inspired build would be more fair, as it would not offer game altering quriks. The "big cool-down or heat generation" quirks if arm mounted would be game altering, and would really be against what we are talking about, as it would be fundamentally altering the way the mech works, thus "punishing" players that don't do it. That is the very thing that Ultimax is saying is bad, and I agree with it, that doing that is a bad idea. What I'm suggesting, doesn't change the quirks, has no game play effect other than basic paint scheme, a 1500mc "rental" to be returned the moment you pull something like PPC's from the arms, or jam AC/s in the ST's.

I have to ask because I do not remember how the BT tabletop game works. In BT rules could you change weapons position in your mech? I remember that there was a part for mech desing but I do not remember if it was for new models design or for customization of existing ones. While I think that a great part of MWO fun is mech customization (i love to try new builds in the mechlab), I would accept some sort of limitations, expecially for heavy weapons like PPCs and Large lasers: You should move them from original hardpoints, but at a some sort of "costs". Nothing game changing but since your are trying to fit a long barreled PPCs from arms specifically designed to accomodate them to the torsi, having some sort of bonus/penalty does not seem unrealistic to me.

[Blind Squirrel]

I think many of the "meta build" issues could be fixed with a few hardpoint tweaks. Break ballistic hardpoints into auto-cannons, mgs, shotguns, and slugs (think gauss). Energy hardpoints split into lasers, ppcs, flamers. Missile hardpoints split in lrms, srms, and bring in the mrms. Add additional hardpoints for utilities like narc, tag, and ams.

Additonally, allow mech shoulders to flex upward and outward (upward and forward works too) to allow for bringing arm weapons up to shoulder level.

I would not be opposed to XL-engines taking up more space based on size. For example, XLs up to 195 only take 2 ST slots. XLs from 200-295 take 3 ST slots, XLs above 295 take 4 ST slots each. This would also allow for the larger engines to produce more power for the energy draw system.

[Metus regem]

invernomuto, on 10 November 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

I have to ask because I do not remember how the BT tabletop game works. In BT rules could you change weapons position in your mech? I remember that there was a part for mech desing but I do not remember if it was for new models design or for customization of existing ones. While I think that a great part of MWO fun is mech customization (i love to try new builds in the mechlab), I would accept some sort of limitations, expecially for heavy weapons like PPCs and Large lasers: You should move them from original hardpoints, but at a some sort of "costs". Nothing game changing but since your are trying to fit a long barreled PPCs from arms specifically designed to accomodate them to the torsi, having some sort of bonus/penalty does not seem unrealistic to me.

There are different classes of refits, I'm not sure of them all off the top of my head..

Field Class:

Able to replace weapons of the same type and size or smaller (Such as PPC to a Large Laser)

Drop Ship:

Able to change a weapon type. (PPC to AC/2)

Factory:

What MWO lets us do

[vettie]

It is a shame to have such an icon of a mech like the Warhammer only to watch it turn towards you and see small lasers spew from those arms when you clearly expected to see PPC fire wrecking your day

[BuckshotSchell]

there are several illustrations in the tech manuals of mechs with their arms raised. In fact a lot of the 'lore' and art even from the earliest iterations of BT show mechs as very dynamic in their movement and ability. Don't forget that every mech warrior was connected directly to his mech via the Neural helmet that they wore. It stated that this gave even the dilapidated makes of the fourth succession war a very high degree of manuverabilty. Then for fun go check out the (I'm not at home to look, but) 3057 tech manual and look at the clan IIc variants of the Griffin, Rifleman, etc...(the WarHammer IIC is posed most majestically as it should be!) they were color pages and they looked F'ing awesome! They were posed very dynamically.

There is a way to assure people will use the hard points in a lore friendly way, but no one would like it. That is to make FW stock mech only, or with very little customization. I don't think this would fly with the community in general though. They could keep the fully meta builds for QP and if it ever comes Solaris fighting pits. Honestly I don't know why they didn't make a stock only mode or option for FW and only made it a private lobby thing. Of course if they did this they would have to address some other things like the clans taking 12 mechs instead of 10 - 15 against the an IS 12 - 16 and some other issues we've all bitched about in the past.

Edited by BuckshotSchell, 10 November 2016 - 10:27 AM.

[Snowbluff]

Blind Squirrel, on 10 November 2016 - 09:12 AM, said:

I think many of the "meta build" issues could be fixed with a few hardpoint tweaks. Break ballistic hardpoints into auto-cannons, mgs, shotguns, and slugs (think gauss). Energy hardpoints split into lasers, ppcs, flamers. Missile hardpoints split in lrms, srms, and bring in the mrms. Add additional hardpoints for utilities like narc, tag, and ams.

Completely remove customization, huh?

Quote

I would not be opposed to XL-engines taking up more space based on size. For example, XLs up to 195 only take 2 ST slots. XLs from 200-295 take 3 ST slots, XLs above 295 take 4 ST slots each. This would also allow for the larger engines to produce more power for the energy draw system.

Bigger engines with better PD would make bigger engines even stronger than they are now.

vettie, on 10 November 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

It is a shame to have such an icon of a mech like the Warhammer only to watch it turn towards you and see small lasers spew from those arms when you clearly expected to see PPC fire wrecking your day

No one use small lasers. :l

[Metus regem]

Snowbluff, on 10 November 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

Completely remove customization, huh?
Bigger engines with better PD would make bigger engines even stronger than they are now.

No one use small lasers. :l

I use SPL's on my WHM-6R she eats thing in CQB...

[process]

Lore is a good place to start, but the overriding factor is whether it's good for the game.

I think the only feasible ways to encourage arm use are:

1. hardpoint-specific quirks
2. torso weapons cannot converge

One major hurdle for having a toggle to raise arms is the mech geometry itself. Then balance. I've seen the suggestion made before that to raise a mech's arms, the arms become locked to the torso. This makes sure that mechs with only upper arm actuators still have a role.

[Snowbluff]

Metus regem, on 10 November 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

I use SPL's on my WHM-6R she eats thing in CQB...

That's an SPL not as SL. :0