239 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

ToWcH, on 04 April 2019 - 09:58 AM, said:

I think you are playing on "Easy mode". DCS is Not an FPS game, how did your brain come up with this one?

This and this came up with it, not me. There are more, if you like.

[thievingmagpi]

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:03 AM, said:

This and this came up with it, not me. There are more, if you like.

Cool, a wikipedia link that doesn't even support your statement. Nice.

Oh and

https://en.wikipedia...ombat_Simulator


>Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) is a free to play combat flight simulator.


>DCS: World is considered one of the foremost combat flight simulators currently available

[Mystere]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:07 AM, said:

Cool, a wikipedia link that doesn't even support your statement. Nice.

Oh and

https://en.wikipedia...ombat_Simulator


>Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) is a free to play combat flight simulator.


>DCS: World is considered one of the foremost combat flight simulators currently available

Psst! I knew you will miss it, even if it is on the "Definition" section!

It actually needs careful and thoughtful reading.

[thievingmagpi]

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:13 AM, said:

Psst! I knew you will miss it, even if it is on the "Definition" section!

It actually needs careful and thoughtful reading.

Yep, not mentioned there either. Thanks for trying.

"Some commentators" also perfectly invalidates your platform.

[Mystere]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:16 AM, said:

Yep, not mentioned there either. Thanks for trying.

"Some commentators" also perfectly invalidates your platform.

As I said, it needs careful and thoughtful reading. You still missed a few things. But, do not worry, you will eventually get it.

[thievingmagpi]

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

As I said, it needs careful and thoughtful reading. You still missed a few things. But, do not worry, you will eventually get it.

You can also follow the citations for the quote, and see again, you failed. So, cool. Keep it up champ.

[Wolfos31]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 09:12 AM, said:

They are fundamentally bad for the game. Lock-on weapons do not belong in a shooter.

Because of their mechanics there's no *good* way to balance them. They're either annoyingly OP, which is terrible, or they're absolutely useless- which is terrible because of the religious following of their users.

Lock on weapons do not belong in an FPS.

This is such a lazy and ignorant statement. The people making these suggestions do it knowing full well the mechanical and tactical counters to such platforms. This is not a case "I'm bad please help". Not in any way, shape or form. I'd enjoy watching you tell someone in the 95+ percentile they just need to "learn to counter x".

ThievingMagpi, I disagree with you on this. While MWO certainly has elements of FPS in it I think it's wrong to treat it as an FPS without the context of the Battletech Universe. LRMs have been a part of Battletech since the earliest novels and tabletop editions. While some departure from lore is necessary (balancing clans vs inner sphere for instance) other areas cannot so easily be disregarded or changed.

I notice that you call out LRMs for being lock on weapons, but streaks are as well. Do those not bother you also?

I am not a top tier player, I'm not particularly bothered by that. But hovering between tier 2 and tier 3 I have some share of experience and I've never found LRMs to be OP. I almost never die to them, with the exception of an organized enemy utilizing narc and massed LRM fire so withering that it denies my attempts to close with the enemy. But in these cases I feel I DESERVE to die, because the enemy is using teamwork and good strategy to win.


Would you rather we remove LRMs entirely? Where would that place mechs like the Catapult, Archer, Trebuchet, Mad Dog, Dervish, and Stalker? You'd remove a viable strategy and narrow the playing styles of players. I'm also confused that you come out against LRMs since your signature seems to advertise their place in the game.

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 09:14 AM, said:

The reason I asked is because I saw your join date as 19-June-2012 and as such I was curious why you only started playing several years later.

Is that in my profile or something? I actually went looking for it when you asked the question and could not find it. I definitely wasn't involved in MWO's early days, I'm not sure why that would be my join date. As you can see I'm a relatively recent poster to the forums.

[Mystere]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:22 AM, said:

You can also follow the citations for the quote, and see again, you failed. So, cool. Keep it up champ.

Damn! You're the gift that keeps on giving! Did you actually read and, more importantly, understand the citations?

[Mystere]

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:27 AM, said:

Is that in my profile or something? I actually went looking for it when you asked the question and could not find it. I definitely wasn't involved in MWO's early days, I'm not sure why that would be my join date. As you can see I'm a relatively recent poster to the forums.

Yes, that is what is said on your profile.

Which begs the question: Is the member profile also bugged?

[thievingmagpi]

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

ThievingMagpi, I disagree with you on this. While MWO certainly has elements of FPS in it I think it's wrong to treat it as an FPS without the context of the Battletech Universe. LRMs have been a part of Battletech since the earliest novels and tabletop editions. While some departure from lore is necessary (balancing clans vs inner sphere for instance) other areas cannot so easily be disregarded or changed.

It is not *only* about dying to LRMs. Never has been. It's about the negative effect that such lock weapons have on gameplay, and about the manner in which lock-on weapons compete with skilled weapons.

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

I notice that you call out LRMs for being lock on weapons, but streaks are as well. Do those not bother you also?

Streaks are pretty stupid, but there isn't a preponderance of streakboats, nor do they function the way that LRMS do.

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

Would you rather we remove LRMs entirely? Where would that place mechs like the Catapult, Archer, Trebuchet, Mad Dog, Dervish, and Stalker?

All of these builds are better served with other weapons as it is.

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

narrow the playing styles of players.

The opposite.

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

I'm also confused that you come out against LRMs since your signature seems to advertise their place in the game.

forgot the /s tag

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:28 AM, said:

Damn! You're the gift that keeps on giving! Did you actually read and, more importantly, understand the citations?

LMAO

you can't make this stuff up.

Keeping embarrassing yourself

[Mystere]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:32 AM, said:

LMAO

you can't make this stuff up.

Keeping embarrassing yourself

Trust me when I say you're the one embarrassing yourself.

[Wolfos31]

I think at this point you may be arguing semantics. I don't see DCS as a FPS either.

To me FPS is:

- First Person exclusively
- Player characters are humanoid
- On foot, though I'd allow exceptions for games like PUBG and Battlefield that incorporate vehicles
- Primary armament being hand carried.

Lately games like Titanfall and the above mentioned shooters have certainly stretched the definition from the days of Quake and Doom. But at their core my above points still apply.

In contrast DCS (afaik, I haven't played it) doesn't allow you to fight outside of a plane. Thus to me it's a flight simulator. This is similar to MWO. Certainly, many mechs are humanoid, but it breaks others of the above rules. MW has in the past been painted a simulator.

[thievingmagpi]

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

I think at this point you may be arguing semantics. I don't see DCS as a FPS either.

That's right, it's not.

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:34 AM, said:

Trust me when I say you're the one embarrassing yourself.

Care to post another link proving yourself wrong?? Go ahead, I'll wait

[Wolfos31]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:32 AM, said:

It is not *only* about dying to LRMs. Never has been. It's about the negative effect that such lock weapons have on gameplay, and about the manner in which lock-on weapons compete with skilled weapons.

Streaks are pretty stupid, but there isn't a preponderance of streakboats, nor do they function the way that LRMS do.

All of these builds are better served with other weapons as it is.

The opposite.

I'm curious, do you play LRM builds at all? Have you ever? There is a theme in your writing that indicates you think people who use LRMs aren't skilled players. Yet I recall in the world championships people using LRMs. Will you argue that those players are not skilled?

I feel that frequently opponents of LRMs seem to argue this dichotomy that:

a. LRMs are "easy mode" used by "unskilled players" to get kills "from the back of the team".
b. That players should not use them, and that they dislike players on their own team using them because LRMs are ineffective, and so shouldn't be brought.

Both can't be true at once. If they produce good results you should be thrilled to have LRM players on your team right? Or if they're ineffective, why the vitriol when an enemy uses them against you?

I use LRMs less than most other weapon systems, but I do have a few mechs built around them. I still feel it takes skill to pilot those mechs, to hold locks, to get my tag on the enemy, to maintain a position where I can share armor but also not get wiped by a light pack, etc. A LRM player sitting back and just lobbing lrms will not net much damage, sure the LRMs are following their lock, but a good pilot does a lot of work to give their missiles the best chance of reaching the target.

Finally, how do you see the removal of a weapon system adding play diversity to the game? What do you think that would generate?

Agree to disagree I guess. But if LRMs went away I wouldn't feel that MWO is very representative of Battletech at large.

[Mystere]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

That's right, it's not.

Care to post another link proving yourself wrong?? Go ahead, I'll wait

I do not have to. Just read them again. I have two words for you: "Descent" and "Spasim".

If you still don't get it ...

But then again I guess you can also quibble with one of the authors, if you insist.

Wolfos31, on 04 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

I think at this point you may be arguing semantics. I don't see DCS as a FPS either.

To me FPS is ...

Maybe you can help him by taking a crack at it. Who knows? You might even end up learning something you did not know beforehand. It does involve the University of Illinois.

[thievingmagpi]

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:59 AM, said:

I do not have to. Just read them again. I have two words for you: "Descent" and "Spasim".

If you still don't get it ...

But then again I guess you can also quibble with one of the authors, if you insist.




Maybe you can help him by taking a crack at it. Who knows? You might even end up learning something you did not know beforehand. It does involve the University of Illinois.

Hint: the D in DCS doesn't stand for Descent try again

[Alienized]

bring me the popcorn pls :>

[Wolfos31]

Mystere, on 04 April 2019 - 10:59 AM, said:

Maybe you can help him by taking a crack at it. Who knows? You might even end up learning something you did not know beforehand. It does involve the University of Illinois.

Maybe we can distill this more. Mystere, would you consider any game where you fire a weapon while in a first person perspective a FPS? I've played Descent and Overload (great game btw, spiritual successor to Descent) but to me they are still not quite an "FPS" to me.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. Started by saying that lock on weapons don't belong in a FPS. MWO by Mystere's definition would be a FPS. But to me and thievingmagpi would not be. Thus lock on weapons are fine in MWO. Though thievingmagpi you seem to have some other objections to them.

[Wolfos31]

thievingmagpi, on 04 April 2019 - 10:07 AM, said:

Cool, a wikipedia link that doesn't even support your statement. Nice.

Actually it does support his stance. From the Definition section: "Some commentators extend the definition to include combat flight simulators where the cockpit or vehicle takes place of the hands and weapons."

As always with language, it's fluid and subject to the context in which it's being used and the people who are using it. Despite this citation, I still would not consider DCS a FPS. Or at the least, I'd consider it a Flight simulator BEFORE I'd consider it a FPS.

Edited by Wolfos31, 04 April 2019 - 11:11 AM.

[Charronn]

You know what when you get a team that actually communicates,helps each other out and calls out targets this game can be immense.I had a great game today on the NA server where we all clicked and it was a magnificent brawl on Touramaline.Ended up with 3 kills but just enjoyed having such good friendly people on my team.I think this game has 99% good people on it.On the red side too.
TBH the tier system is crap and needs to go.I also find the EU servers way less fun due to lack of communication.NA servers are massively more enjoyable apart from the ping.Must be a language thing I guess but I just feel it's a different game at times.

Edited by Charronn, 04 April 2019 - 11:28 AM.