DrtyDshSoap, on 11 July 2018 - 05:29 AM, said:
An uphill battle for sure, a game ender though? Not really. Won dumber games. Loss really really dumb games. Just the nature of QP.
Sure it is.
Did half your team derp to Theta to cap on HPG and give up the high ground? Good chance your team is going to get wiped. Likewise, if a team rotates away from their slow derpy assaults, and nascars, better hope they catch the tail end first. There's a lot more to it than you give it credit for.
This all accounts for positioning as well. If you can't see it, I have no idea what to tell you then.
I think you need to look up the definition of what a strawman argument is...because once again, your opinion on entertainment is your opinion alone. What you might find entertaining might be completely boring to me and vice versa. Baffled that I have to explain this to a grown adult.
Pretty sure you don't know what a strawman is.
If you want big plays from individual skills, you should try and play League of Legends. That has a more emphasis on individual skill than MechWarrior does. You're still basically asking for the same thing, wanting that Joe Montana on your team to throw that one in a million pass and bring the game back from 11-0 to 11-12. This is a walking tank simulator with a 12v12. Teamwork is going to be a bigger element. That's the whole premise.
I'll retract that argument since I haven't played MechWarrior 2 since I was...5? 6? Around there. I do firmly believe that we have way more freedoms in comparison to previous installments though, I'll stick with that. My bad on bringing that up, should have just stuck with 4.
No ****? You mean 2 players pack more firepower than 1 player? What a load of crap!
Of course I favor massed firepower. Why wouldn't I? It's a robot game where you have a crap ton of weapons that go pew pew, bang bang. Just because you're a good player doesn't mean that the other team won't have a better player(s), or just be incapable of using the same load outs, etc. Hell, even my personal background is based off of more firepower than the enemy, violence of action. Kind of dumb to think otherwise?
The skill gap is sure low, 250 is an average match score. What I'd like to see is a Ranked Que but I'm a mad man for thinking that.
But you don't want a lower TTK, not in the way you described it. You want two potato's that fire at you be unable to kill you or you just remain magically unscathed because of your pure awesome. You also don't want more fire power or priority targets IE: The exact opposite of using teamwork
I certainly can look at other popular games, but I also can't draw up the same exact problems or successes compared to MWO, as MWO is rather unique on the market when we compare it to the likes of CoD or PUBG or League of Legends, etc. Those first two games has a more of an emphasis of a very low TTK (You can't torso twist damage in any of those games), and a hell of alot more fast paced. While the third draws an emphasis of individual skill that leads up to teamwork and team synergy. MWO doesn't have a "team synergy" outside of LRMs/tag/NARC. The comparisons of the more popular games are so low, it'd basically be an Apples to Oranges comparison.
Well in MW2 at least, you had far more customization ability than now. There were no 'hardpoints' so you could, true to lore, kit out your omnimech however you liked, change up the engine and adjust armor as you saw fit. I suppose it could be argued that now you have more options due to the skill tree and consumables.
A strawman would be you creating an argument you think I'm making or would like me to be making then attacking that instead of my actual argument, which you've done. You've said I only like big plays, you've said I want to make the game a twitch shooter and you've said I expect two people to somehow do less damage than one.
None of that is true. Let me take a moment to explain how lower TTK more strongly favors a skilled player in an asymmetric engagement, because it's clear you don't get that part of the argument: It makes it easier for that good player to turn the situation into a one on one by killing one of the enemy mechs.
Yeah, if you're not that much better, if you don't have positional advantage, you WILL die even faster in a two on one situation. However, with lower TTK your positional advantage, faster aiming and better twisting will mean you can take half of the damage out of the fight before you've been banged up. Right now virtually any engagement will be a damage trade that only marginally favors the better player. Lower TTK gives more decisive fights, which means the better player, or the player with better positioning will take less damage to get their kill, as a result, a player who is consistently making good decisions will be better rewarded for it, because they'll take less damage per kill they get, because they are able to more rapidly silence any return fire.
All of those things you mentioned? Target priority? Focus fire? All those still matter with a lower TTK. I don't want to remove those from the game. It's a team game and those are important aspects, what I do want is for them not to totally overshine shot placement or positional advantage. You are grossly exaggerating literally everything I've said (almost like you're inventing a position and attributing it to me, or
creating a straw man.)
Again, you call it a 'walking tank simulator' but in any sort of tank simulator, then position should matter more and combat should be more lethal.
As for 'entertainment.' You're not saying you would prefer to watch a slow 0-3 game in football. You're being extremely intellectually dishonest on this point. But if you prefer, I can say, "In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people find that big plays in games are much more fun to watch and participate in, and that the potential for an unexpected outcome makes more people find a situation exciting." I suppose I'm sure there's someone who would like every situation in a game to be more predictable, and yet the vast majority of games using cards or dice, and the vast majority of sports not having rules against big plays would indicate that those people are in the minority. Many sports, in fact, introduce rules to encourage high-risk, high-reward plays that show off individual skill. That is literally the reason the 3-point line was introduced to basketball.
But anyway, I'm kind of done with replying to you. I'm trying to have a discussion/debate. Hey, you disagree, that's cool. Let's talk about why. How about trying to explain how lower TTK (I would say 30-50% less) would not do what I expect it to do, or how it would be detrimental to the game. Being insulting just because I disagree with you and not trying to be civil doesn't make you right. It makes you an *******, and I'm surprised I have to explain this to a grown adult.
3
