31 replies to this topic

[Angel of Annihilation]

The6thMessenger, on 15 March 2019 - 05:11 PM, said:

My real concern however is the inability to fine-tune an already less inferior tech.

I mean look at the BlackJack omni for example, it's going to be stuck at 64 KPH for a medium, and it's XL engine too. They have to change some rules like make an IS XL side-torso survivable on omni, else they have to give it so much armor it's practically a jagermech.

You do realize that at this juncture, Clan XLs aren't all that survivable anymore right. I know that at least 80% of the time I lose a ST in an XL equiped Clan mech, I die either to the heat spike causing me to instantly go boom or I am put into such a hard over heat lock down, that I am just a sitting target for however long it takes for the enemy to kill me. LFEs too of course which is why I am finding myself re-installing XLs back into many of my IS mechs. The only reason I don't replace all my LFEs with XLs is because IS weapons are much cooler running and alot less spiky when it comes to heat which in turn means you actually have a much greater chance of surviving losing a ST with a LFE equipped then you do with a Clan XL equipped. I would probably say at least a 40% chance of survival verses the 10-20% survival of a Clan XL.

So with that being said, I don't really think the XL is as much an obstacle to IS Omnimechs as it once was, however what will be the biggest obstacle is the fixed armor and structure slots. I already have scenarios on my Clan Omnis where I might have 2-5 critical slots available and can't use them because their scattered in singles all across the mech. Think about how much more difficult it will be with the IS with its bulkier DHS and other equipment. In the case of the IS, it often won't be 2-5 slots unusable, it will be 6, 8 maybe even 10 slots unusable due to not much of value being able to fit into 2 slots or less.

[Alex Morgaine]

Ok hear me out. How about a second, hidden xl engine type for IS omnis. It has the same base stats as normal xl engines, but instead of dead on one torso, because of the way the game is coded they could have it function like a lfe or clan xl. Adjust lost torso penalties and bam! Functional locked xl IS omni. Literally a ctrl+c[clan xl], ctrl+v from existing minus in game some text editing.

[FLG 01]

The6thMessenger, on 15 March 2019 - 08:33 PM, said:

That's rather unfair.

I'd rather have the rules tweaked, i mean TT rules won't exactly translate well to FPS.

I think the opposite is true: it is totally unfair to change the rules for IS Omnis just to be able to ignore the good IS Omnis out there. It is unfair to Clan Omnis and of course it is unfair to actually potent IS Omnis.

There is no need to 'tweak' rules for the Men Shen or the Black Hawk KU or the Raptor. Again, I don't see why we'd have to go for the bad Mechs.

Also, more likely than not, any 'tweaking' will cause more problems than it solves, require more ressources than the result could ever justify, and displease a large part of the playerbase no matter what.
It is easier, fairer and more efficient to just pick capable IS Omnis.

[The6thMessenger]

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 11:28 AM, said:

I think the opposite is true: it is totally unfair to change the rules for IS Omnis just to be able to ignore the good IS Omnis out there. It is unfair to Clan Omnis and of course it is unfair to actually potent IS Omnis.

There is no need to 'tweak' rules for the Men Shen or the Black Hawk KU or the Raptor. Again, I don't see why we'd have to go for the bad Mechs.

Your argument seems predicated on the premise that we want to ignore the other IS Omnis, which isn't the case. Clan Omni has clan-tech, which is already OP in the first place, it's more than fair.

Why I would push changing the rules is basically like protecting free speech, for just as you have the right to enjoy the mechs you want, others have the right to enjoy the mechs they want.

Lets change IS XL rules for omni to cater to the bad mechs, what was lost of value of fun for you? Nothing, for your select good IS Omnis would still work fine and maybe even better, but the guys that would prefer the bad mechs would have fun. But if we retained IS XL rules, still nothing of value of fun is lost for you, but the guys that would prefer the bad mechs wouldn't have fun. Basically you're being a ****.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 11:28 AM, said:

Also, more likely than not, any 'tweaking' will cause more problems than it solves, require more ressources than the result could ever justify, and displease a large part of the playerbase no matter what.

Tweaking would be just a matter of XML values, because we already have those.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 11:28 AM, said:

It is easier, fairer and more efficient to just pick capable IS Omnis.

No, it's not.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 March 2019 - 03:03 PM.

[FLG 01]

The6thMessenger, on 16 March 2019 - 02:57 PM, said:

Your argument seems predicated on the premise that we want to ignore the other IS Omnis, which isn't the case. Clan Omni has clan-tech, which is already OP in the first place, it's more than fair.

Why I would push changing the rules is basically like protecting free speech, for just as you have the right to enjoy the mechs you want, others have the right to enjoy the mechs they want.

Lets change IS XL rules for omni to cater to the bad mechs, what was lost of value of fun for you? Nothing, for your select good IS Omnis would still work fine and maybe even better, but the guys that would prefer the bad mechs would have fun. But if we retained IS XL rules, still nothing of value of fun is lost for you, but the guys that would prefer the bad mechs wouldn't have fun. Basically you're being a ****.

There is no 'right' to change the rules just so you can have fun with your bad units in game, and there is certainly no 'right' to enjoy certain special Mechs in a MechWarrior game; the comparison to the right of free speech is mildly puzzling, as is your verbal abusive.

You may disagree with me on how easy it would be to change stuff to the liking of the majority and to a great effect in the balance of this game, but that does not make you right nor does a repeated 'no it's not' . Given the history of PGI and this community it is rather unlikely that a major change, welcomed by the community no less, would come easily imo.

As far as people who 'prefer the bad mech' are concerned, I say they can just try. If they really like their underperformer they will use it. You will see me in rather so hot Mechs regularly because I like them.
But the thing is they don't really want them. They want an XL-engined Mech that does not die upon losing a side torso. That's like wanting a Black Lanner but disliking overengined Mechs. It makes no sense.

If people were not so set on certain Mechs and opened their minds in order to explore what they actually like playing in MWO, they'd discover there are many Mechs for their needs. They'd be a lot happier. I am actually concerned with others having fun in this game. That is why I warned them about their nostalgia choices from MW:4 like the Thanatos or the Hellspawn which turned out just as predicted. Of course, some people did not like to hear that and told me I was totally wrong. Which is fine...

...especially as they were usually more polite and considerate than you.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Obligatory;

Change XL behaviour;
1. OmniMech XL = Clan XL
2. BattleMech XL = IS XL
3. Clan get their own LFE

[The6thMessenger]

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

There is no 'right' to change the rules just so you can have fun with your bad units in game, and there is certainly no 'right' to enjoy certain special Mechs in a MechWarrior game; the comparison to the right of free speech is mildly puzzling, as is your verbal abusive.

Well, if they're going to add the stuffs in the game, players DO have the right to enjoy it. Else if they're not enjoying it, there's no point to add it in the game. And people won't play the game if they don't enjoy it, because enjoyment is the point of the game.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

You may disagree with me on how easy it would be to change stuff to the liking of the majority and to a great effect in the balance of this game, but that does not make you right nor does a repeated 'no it's not' .

What, so are you the authority on it or something? Disagreeing doesn't make me right, being right makes me right.

Again, we already have the current Clan XL, IS XL, and LFE, the code is in there for torso survivability, it's just a matter of creating another entity within the game.

It's not easier, it's not fairer, it's not more efficient, it's just a different approach, but one would leave people out. Let me get this straight, yes, sure, that's one solution, but it's not in the best interest of everyone.

PGI needs to fix their ****.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

Given the history of PGI and this community it is rather unlikely that a major change, welcomed by the community no less, would come easily imo.

Then it's not a matter of methodology as your statement so implies. Engine mechanics change is adequate, it will make the IS mechs that are XL-bound more survivable by functioning like LFE, it fixes the problem.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

As far as people who 'prefer the bad mech' are concerned, I say they can just try. If they really like their underperformer they will use it. You will see me in rather so hot Mechs regularly because I like them.

But the thing is they don't really want them. They want an XL-engined Mech that does not die upon losing a side torso. That's like wanting a Black Lanner but disliking overengined Mechs. It makes no sense.

Here's the thing, MWO plays differently from TT, such as decent TT mechs do get bad MWO performance due to bad hitboxes and other stuffs, even the pinpoint ppfld as opposed of a random chance of hitting a component contributes to this. Just play HBS Battletech and see the difference of survivability vs MWO.

I don't think you're in the position to tell others what they want. Yes, sure, people would still use their favorite mechs regardless. But would they enjoy it with the context of the game? If they find themselves more hampered than mechs what we would consider meta? I'd rather we abide by the standard of making them viable, if not stellar.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

If people were not so set on certain Mechs and opened their minds in order to explore what they actually like playing in MWO, they'd discover there are many Mechs for their needs. They'd be a lot happier. I am actually concerned with others having fun in this game. That is why I warned them about their nostalgia choices from MW:4 like the Thanatos or the Hellspawn which turned out just as predicted. Of course, some people did not like to hear that and told me I was totally wrong. Which is fine...

Well, you do you. But people have different preferences, they have what they want and that's fine. But we have to compromise for the enjoyment of everyone, not just the select few.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 03:35 PM, said:

...especially as they were usually more polite and considerate than you.

Please don't confuse my harshness and directness for malevolence.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 March 2019 - 04:59 PM.

[FupDup]

There is actually a point to be made for changing some engine mechanics (i.e. IS XL buff), but it shouldn't be exclusive to one specific subset of mechs. If you're gonna do it then it applies across the whole faction.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 16 March 2019 - 04:03 PM, said:

There is actually a point to be made for changing some engine mechanics (i.e. IS XL buff), but it shouldn't be exclusive to one specific subset of mechs. If you're gonna do it then it applies across the whole faction.

Sure, why not?

I mean honestly, at least it closes the gap with Clan-Tech.

[FLG 01]

The6thMessenger, on 16 March 2019 - 03:59 PM, said:

Well, if they're going to add the stuffs in the game, players DO have the right to enjoy it. Else if they're not enjoying it, there's no point to add it in the game. And people won't play the game if they don't enjoy it, because enjoyment is the point of the game.
[...]

Yeah, that is precisely my point. You do have the right to enjoy your useless Avatar - good luck with that! - but you do not have the right to demand changes to make it more survivable. If there were such right, I'd probably sue PGI for making my Black Hawk so vulnerable.
Anyway, it is certainly nowhere near elementary rights like free speech. I grew up in a communist dictatorship, and comparing free speech to the right to changing the engine mechanics for a certain unit in a video game ... just seems bizarre to me. I understand you probably never saw any meaningful oppression and are willing to come up with such hyper-moralist comparisons left, right and center. Well, good for you.

You also may want to look up my stats. It is really not like you were to tell me how MWO plays. I know an Avatar would be useless in MWO, that is why I warn people about it. And that is why I spread the word about good IS Omnis which people would properly enjoy in game. Saying they will not enjoy the Men Shen or the Black Hawk KU is not only an epistemological fallacy, it comes across as rather authoritarian, ironically.
You can repeat your points about being right as often as you wish (and I think you will). If you have a new argument, I might respond to it. Big if.

The6thMessenger, on 16 March 2019 - 03:59 PM, said:

Please don't confuse my harshness and directness for malevolence.

You could be direct without being censored...

Edited by FLG 01, 16 March 2019 - 04:53 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

Yeah, that is precisely my point. You do have the right to enjoy your useless Avatar - good luck with that! - but you do not have the right to demand changes to make it more survivable. If there were such right, I'd probably sue PGI for making my Black Hawk so vulnerable.

You're limiting at this at a legal standpoint, think of it as a business standpoint. If they want money, their hands are tied to the satisfaction of their customers, and if they aren't satisfied, they won't buy things thus the phrase "vote with your wallet".

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

You also may want to look up my stats. It is really not like you were to tell me how MWO plays.

Since when did I told how you how MWO plays? I just said that you're not in the position to tell other people what they want, which is a completely different thing.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

I know an Avatar would be useless in MWO, that is why I warn people about it. And that is why I spread the word about good IS Omnis which people would properly enjoy in game. Saying they will not enjoy the Men Shen or the Black Hawk KU is not only an epistemological fallacy, it comes across as rather authoritarian, ironically.

Well right now, It's more of a strawman fallacy at your end actually, because I never said that they wouldn't enjoy Men-Shen or Black-Hawk KU, I just implied that it would be fair for them to have their desired other IS Omnis, and to be enjoyable for them by adjusting the rules for the so obviously disparaged IS-Tech since that seems to be a basic requirement for implementation.

FLG 01, on 16 March 2019 - 04:51 PM, said:

You could be direct without being censored...

Yes, but that's how language works. That they have to censor me, means I am invoking something intense, which conveys precisely my expression regardless.

**** fuckiddy **** **** ****. I'll say whatever i want. ***** Lasagna.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 16 March 2019 - 05:15 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

RIP thread.

TL;DR for PGI: give us IS Omnis in MWO, please. No more MW5-transferable drek.