205 replies to this topic

[Defender Rococo Rockfowl]

For the record, Polar is fine.

I don’t use LRMs (too slow for my taste, plus they’re just a trolling weapon).

But this map is a good change of pace. I actually like Viridian Bog & Polar more than the new ugly, foggy map!

[Galenit]

The6thMessenger, on 17 November 2017 - 03:34 AM, said:

Again. Not. Compromise.

Compromise?
Give ph 50% more cover, but remove 50% cover from all other maps.

If you want a compromise, you need not only to take, but also to give.
Taking a little less is not a compromise if you dont give something back.

Dont you know it better or do you think you are smarter then all others?
Or are you only a murican, in this case its ok, because we know orange clowns from murican-land.

[Wolfways]

Defender Rococo Rockfowl, on 17 November 2017 - 04:50 AM, said:

MWO disappoints as a MechWarrior title but it is a decent F2P robot-space-tank shoot-em-up. Credit given where credit's due. Change MWO's name & I'll STFU & stop complaining about lore stuff

I agree completely.

Also, Lyons was a hero and the so-called Outcasts are traitors.

[SOL Ranger]

Polar Saltlands is the best map in the game, it allows for all builds to compete and allows all kinds of dynamic events and movement to happen.

If LRM is a problem for someone, equip AMS/ECM or take skills in the skill tree to help avoid them, just a single AMS reduces incoming missiles significantly, if your team has 2-3+ AMS the enemy LRM spam becomes increasingly trivial. The only reason people don't use AMS is because of minmaxing as they don't want to "waste" tonnage, I do it too, however I don't need anything to help me against LRM even on saltlands in 99% of the cases so the value of it isn't there for me.

This whole idea of avoiding LRM through remaking maps to fit the risk averse hiding meta is flawed, lets not make all maps virtually identical obstacle humping for that matter.

If anything LRM's need to be fixed so they can be used more reliably to avoid smaller obstacles already in game and give the weapon system more versatile support role value as a whole. This would also raise the value of AMS as something worth taking for most players because getting hit by LRMs would be a regular occurrence.

[Vonbach]

SOL Ranger, on 17 November 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

Polar Saltlands is the best map in the game, For LRM noobs

There fixed it for you.

[SOL Ranger]

Vonbach, on 17 November 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:

There fixed it for you.

All I see is you're allergic to LRM's.

Polar Highlands allows some of the best gameplay simply because it doesn't strictly force movement based on rigid landscape, you can cross over any hill at any point in essentially any mech and most of what happens depends heavily on the active decisions made by the players.

There are no choke points to camp or rush through in a predictable manner, there is no heavy cover to hold your hand for safety nor hide behind when you get into trouble, only your teammates more or less. There is only mild cover in most places and it only gives security if used actively with good perception and team play.

Polar Highlands is all about coordination and following through because it offers so many avenues to engage in combat at the same time, hesitation, risk averse behaviour and not paying attention to details in enemy movements will get you killed.

It's the one map where anything can happen, and that is because everyone isn't huddling behind some big obstacles and covering the same old choke points in front of them, and that variety is a good thing.

[Siegegun]

Vonbach, on 17 November 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:

There fixed it for you.

Someone has the salty fear of the lurms.

[Wolfways]

It's funny how after 6 years people are still whining about the most underpowered weapon in a game where lasers and ballistics do more efficient pinpoint damage, are easier to use, and don't waste anywhere near as much ammo.

[Mister Blastman]

How about allowing folks to pick their chassis once the map has been selected, so our loadout can suit the environment and geography?

[McGoat]

Eradicate Polar - replace it with MW4 Frostbite.

[Wolfways]

Mister Blastman, on 17 November 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

How about allowing folks to pick their chassis once the map has been selected, so our loadout can suit the environment and geography?

And allow even further min/maxing? Everyone would pick ballistic mechs on hot maps, so what would be the point in pgi making maps with different temperatures?

[Mister Blastman]

Wolfways, on 17 November 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

And allow even further min/maxing? Everyone would pick ballistic mechs on hot maps, so what would be the point in pgi making maps with different temperatures?

I'm fine with that, because then PGI would finally be forced to address the core issues of the game. Boating should have limitations, not absolute advantages.

I realize not being able to pick specific loadouts for specific maps partially addresses this, but it doesn't--it is a band-aid, because we constantly have threads complaining about hide-n'-poke, snipers, and boating, all symptoms of the larger problem.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 17 November 2017 - 08:30 AM.

[Wolfways]

How about instead of asking to have maps removed we get more maps with a good variety of terrain like:


Oh wait, we can't because MWO players don't like walking anywhere

[Mister Blastman]

MW:LL had GREAT maps.

[Wolfways]

Mister Blastman, on 17 November 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

MW:LL has GREAT maps.

FTFY

It's still there

[The6thMessenger]

Wolfways, on 17 November 2017 - 04:33 AM, said:

And you don't seem to be able to accept opinions that differ from yours.

If only it were true.

Wrong, there's a difference between accepting an opinion, and agreeing with an opinion. I accept opinions, I just don't have to agree with them.

Wolfways, on 17 November 2017 - 04:33 AM, said:

Okay I'll explain what compromise means since you obviously don't know (and because you're being pedantic).

Compromise is when both parties make concessions. It doesn't have to mean 50/50.
In this case I accept that the maps I hate should stay because other players like them, and in return I get (hopefully) more players liking MWO meaning pgi get more money to improve MWO. I.e. we both benefit.

Really? You're using it the wrong way, but i obviously don't know what it means?

Never mind the fact that you didn't involved the other party to make a decision together, and met them half way, you just gave way. What makes a compromise is MUTUAL concession, in which literally the two parties met half-way. Not just "both benefit".

All you did is surrendered, and hoped for the best, you're the only one that made concession, not the other guy so it's not even "both". Of course it doesn't mean 50/50, but when you just surrendered and let the other guy have it's way without even a slight adjustment -- yeah that's not compromise.

Again, you might as well ask for four-legged tripod, search for married-bachelors, draw square-circles. But lol okay, I'm the one who don't know **** about what compromise means.

Whatever lets you sleep at night bro, I'm done.

SOL Ranger, on 17 November 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

If LRM is a problem for someone, equip AMS/ECM or take skills in the skill tree to help avoid them, just a single AMS reduces incoming missiles significantly, if your team has 2-3+ AMS the enemy LRM spam becomes increasingly trivial. The only reason people don't use AMS is because of minmaxing as they don't want to "waste" tonnage, I do it too, however I don't need anything to help me against LRM even on saltlands in 99% of the cases so the value of it isn't there for me.

I don't mind breaking meta. But if the enemy, or your allies brought hundreds of lrm tubes, say an LRM80A Supernova, there's not a lot a 3x AMS Kitfox can even do.

SOL Ranger, on 17 November 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

This whole idea of avoiding LRM through remaking maps to fit the risk averse hiding meta is flawed, lets not make all maps virtually identical obstacle humping for that matter.

Really? Umbrellas, exposed for direct-fire, but not for LRM fire would make it the same as the other maps? And when they are sprinkled around PH, that wouldn't cover the entirety of the map, would be virtually identical to obstacle humping?

SOL Ranger, on 17 November 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

It's the one map where anything can happen, and that is because everyone isn't huddling behind some big obstacles and covering the same old choke points in front of them, and that variety is a good thing.

And a couple of umbrellas sprinkled around the map will change that? Would umbrellas make choke-points? Create lanes? Rhetorical by the way.

That's why I chose literal umbrellas in the form of massive satellite-dishes. Because they would provide LRM cover, but would still cater to the pros of the map.

SOL Ranger, on 17 November 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

If anything LRM's need to be fixed so they can be used more reliably to avoid smaller obstacles already in game and give the weapon system more versatile support role value as a whole. This would also raise the value of AMS as something worth taking for most players because getting hit by LRMs would be a regular occurrence.

Kinda tried that: https://mwomercs.com...rk-trick-shots/

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 November 2017 - 03:21 PM.

[Wolfways]

The6thMessenger, on 17 November 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

I'm done.

You said that before. I'll show you how it's done.

[SeventhSL]

Wolfways, on 17 November 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

You said that before. I'll show you how it's done.

Yer... I can't say I blame you. I don't think there is much point continuing the dialog with him. He simply won't acknowledge that having approximately 15 maps in quick play with LRM safe cover and 1 without isn't a huge compromise on our part. Apparently having all of them with LRM safe cover and zero without is meeting people, who don't want LRM safe cover on every single map, half way. Lol.

So to simplify. Apparently 15:1 isn't a a huge compromise by the 1 but 16:0 is meeting halfway. I think 8:8 is actually half way but that's just my dogma, so I'm told. Or my opinion doesn't count, or I must clearly be some kind of LRM boater or <insert fancy words here>.

Edited by SeventhSL, 17 November 2017 - 09:21 PM.

[Requiemking]

SOL Ranger, on 17 November 2017 - 06:34 AM, said:

Polar Saltlands is the best map in the game, it allows for all builds to compete and allows all kinds of dynamic events and movement to happen.

If LRM is a problem for someone, equip AMS/ECM or take skills in the skill tree to help avoid them, just a single AMS reduces incoming missiles significantly, if your team has 2-3+ AMS the enemy LRM spam becomes increasingly trivial. The only reason people don't use AMS is because of minmaxing as they don't want to "waste" tonnage, I do it too, however I don't need anything to help me against LRM even on saltlands in 99% of the cases so the value of it isn't there for me.

This whole idea of avoiding LRM through remaking maps to fit the risk averse hiding meta is flawed, lets not make all maps virtually identical obstacle humping for that matter.

If anything LRM's need to be fixed so they can be used more reliably to avoid smaller obstacles already in game and give the weapon system more versatile support role value as a whole. This would also raise the value of AMS as something worth taking for most players because getting hit by LRMs would be a regular occurrence.

Well, I suggested a while back that Polar should get some underground tunnels running through it. Granted, this was back when the pepsi-goose bear was the strongest mech in game, but it still applies here.

[The6thMessenger]

SeventhSL, on 17 November 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

Yer... I can't say I blame you. I don't think there is much point continuing the dialog with him. He simply won't acknowledge that having approximately 15 maps in quick play with LRM safe cover and 1 without isn't a huge compromise on our part. Apparently having all of them with LRM safe cover and zero without is meeting people, who don't want LRM safe cover on every single map, half way. Lol.

So to simplify. Apparently 15:1 isn't a a huge compromise by the 1 but 16:0 is meeting halfway. I think 8:8 is actually half way but that's just my dogma, so I'm told. Or my opinion doesn't count, or I must clearly be some kind of LRM boater or <insert fancy words here>.

The problem is how you look at it. It's either "yes/no cover", instead of weapon effectiveness. Hell, you don't even know that Polar Highlands DO have hard-cover -- such as those buildings on G6, H11 - H12, i12 - i13, F9, J6 - K7, and J10, so guess what, it's actually 16:0, so I don't know where you pull that "no hard-cover" trait you apply to Polar Highlands.

You don't believe me?: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...lands&m=assault , yeah. "No hard-cover" my butt.

What about instead of looking at it "15:1", hows about, by LRM "effectiveness"? It's always been about that, why LRM enthusiasts are opposed, with PH seems to have "no hard-cover" that LRMs work far better than other maps -- basically where most weapons can work. Sure as hell, we're going to have better conversation and progress, cause that either has/no hard-cover ******** isn't going anywhere, it's a god damn dead-end.

Example: (numbers are representative, not exact)

1: LRM works 10% (Crimson Strait)
2: LRM works 15%
3: LRM works 20%
4: LRM works 25%
5: LRM works 30%
6: LRM works 35%
7: LRM works 40%
8: LRM works 45%
9: LRM works 50%
10: LRM works 55%
11: LRM works 65%
12: LRM works 60%
13: LRM works 75%
14: LRM works 80%
15: LRM works 95% (Polar Highlands)

You know what we (I) want? From 95% to 93%, that's it.

But you put yourself and us in a position that it's either or, than a gradient, you put yourself in the position that either we just agree with you, or disagree with you with nothing in between. Dichotomy.

Unfortunately, that's too hard to grasp. If you still don't get it, I can't help you anymore.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 November 2017 - 12:04 AM.