39 replies to this topic

[HammerMaster]

pbiggz, on 05 May 2021 - 10:01 AM, said:

Its not a joke. Tabletop means nothing in this game. It never has meant anything and it can't mean anything. If you think it does, you just don't understand what you're asking for.

Additionally, if you, a 40something year old, insist on conducting yourself like a child, then people will talk down to you like a child. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It is NOT a joke. The fact that it didn't mean anything tabletop wise is why so much has been missing.

While I agree with yes play stupid games win stupid prizes. I fail to see how I'm being childish in disagreeing from your viewpoint? I'm allowed MY viewpoint no matter my age. Don't marginalize us grandpas. As far as talking down? Yeah. Twitch gameplay kiddies are gonna do that here no matter what.

Why are we having a beef?

Edited by HammerMaster, 05 May 2021 - 10:56 AM.

[pbiggz]

HammerMaster, on 05 May 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

It is NOT a joke. The fact that it didn't mean anything tabletop wise is why so much has been missing.

While I agree with yes play stupid games win stupid prizes. I fail to see how I'm being childish in disagreeing from your viewpoint? I'm allowed MY viewpoint no matter my age. Don't marginalize us grandpas. As far as talking down? Yeah. Twitch gameplay kiddies are gonna do that here no matter what.

Why are we having a beef?

Because "Hahaha NO" is not an appropriate or measured rebuttal to a measured response. While you're entitled to your opinion, im also entitled to telling you why its ****.

Omnimech field refits are not part of this game, and there's no easy or good way to set them up without significantly violating build rules, and disadvantaging battlemechs, which will then need another elaborate system to be rebalanced against omnimechs. This would add layers of needless complexity to a game already openly hostile to new players. In other words, its unnecessary, and doesn't actually give us all that much in terms of improvement, a sharp contrast to the proposal being made by OP.

The proposal made in this thread is actually a very reasonable proposal that would significantly improve this game, so poopooing it because "omnimechs" is not a constructive or reasonable counterpoint to adopt.

Also, I wont talk down to you if you're nice. If you're crashing into threads to poopoo on them for no reason, thats not nice.

Edited by pbiggz, 05 May 2021 - 11:20 AM.

[x Deathstrike x]

HammerMaster, on 05 May 2021 - 09:34 AM, said:

Hahaha NO.

This game is inspired by Table Top and with a bit of imagination one can recognize almost everything from TT.
So yes, we dont need more TT in here.

[Koopak]

HammerMaster, on 05 May 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

It is NOT a joke. The fact that it didn't mean anything tabletop wise is why so much has been missing.

While I agree with yes play stupid games win stupid prizes. I fail to see how I'm being childish in disagreeing from your viewpoint? I'm allowed MY viewpoint no matter my age. Don't marginalize us grandpas. As far as talking down? Yeah. Twitch gameplay kiddies are gonna do that here no matter what.

Why are we having a beef?

I'm... not even going to touch this age garbage. This is a public forum with real human beings, maybe conduct yourselves with some respect.

As for the actual topic? I disagree flatly with your assertion that the lack of following table top is the issue. Its a view point i completely understand though. I will decry the armor doubling till the day I die and how it horribly skews weight balance and requires copious quirking to account for.

The fact of the matter though is what works for a turn based strategy, cannot work for a first person shooter. It IS a good starting point, and there ARE some things that need to be brought back closer to how they are in table top. This? This is not one of them.

Lets imagine for a second, a realistic depiction of table top match making. Omnimechs would be able to pick their fit before matches, they would not be limited by hardpoints, only by pod space and hard mounted components of the mech. Battlemechs would not be able to be modified before a match, realistically? They wouldn't be able to be modified hardly at all. In cannon, rigging a mech with a non factory loadout is a SIGNIFICANT effort, taking weeks for minor changes like swapping a weapon for a similar one, or months for the kinds of mass refits we regularly use.

While MWLL proves locked loadouts can work, its not what MWO is based around, customization. As such, to address another point made earlier, having the ability to pick a loadout based on the map and possibly your team comp, results in more variety, rather than having to make every mech able to handle every situation, which leads to a small subset of mechs.

[HammerMaster]

Koopak, on 05 May 2021 - 11:39 AM, said:

I'm... not even going to touch this age garbage. This is a public forum with real human beings, maybe conduct yourselves with some respect.

As for the actual topic? I disagree flatly with your assertion that the lack of following table top is the issue. Its a view point i completely understand though. I will decry the armor doubling till the day I die and how it horribly skews weight balance and requires copious quirking to account for.

The fact of the matter though is what works for a turn based strategy, cannot work for a first person shooter. It IS a good starting point, and there ARE some things that need to be brought back closer to how they are in table top. This? This is not one of them.

Lets imagine for a second, a realistic depiction of table top match making. Omnimechs would be able to pick their fit before matches, they would not be limited by hardpoints, only by pod space and hard mounted components of the mech. Battlemechs would not be able to be modified before a match, realistically? They wouldn't be able to be modified hardly at all. In cannon, rigging a mech with a non factory loadout is a SIGNIFICANT effort, taking weeks for minor changes like swapping a weapon for a similar one, or months for the kinds of mass refits we regularly use.

While MWLL proves locked loadouts can work, its not what MWO is based around, customization. As such, to address another point made earlier, having the ability to pick a loadout based on the map and possibly your team comp, results in more variety, rather than having to make every mech able to handle every situation, which leads to a small subset of mechs.

OmniMechs are what addresses the "where are we dropping" issue.
The fact that it wasn't implemented properly doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
At this point yes. It's not gonna happen.
Snowflake mechs never should have been a thing and that's what I decry.
What we have, well I guess its what we have.
I don't have to agree with it.

pbiggz, on 05 May 2021 - 11:18 AM, said:

Because "Hahaha NO" is not an appropriate or measured rebuttal to a measured response. While you're entitled to your opinion, im also entitled to telling you why its ****.

Also, I wont talk down to you if you're nice. If you're crashing into threads to poopoo on them for no reason, thats not nice.

I don't see how this is inflammatory?
I'm not nice? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[pbiggz]

HammerMaster, on 05 May 2021 - 12:00 PM, said:

OmniMechs are what addresses the "where are we dropping" issue.
The fact that it wasn't implemented properly doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
At this point yes. It's not gonna happen.
Snowflake mechs never should have been a thing and that's what I decry.
What we have, well I guess its what we have.
I don't have to agree with it.

So the solution you are suggesting is to invalidate two thirds of the mechs in the game. That's not a solution. You're opposing a modest and well thought out proposed change because its not like how it is in the tabletop or the books.

Nobody cares how it was in the tabletop and books.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Am I the only one who gets excited when they get a bad map for their loadout? Making the best of a bad situation is interesting in a video game! Put your thinking caps on and make it work!

[HammerMaster]

pbiggz, on 05 May 2021 - 12:04 PM, said:

So the solution you are suggesting is to invalidate two thirds of the mechs in the game. That's not a solution. You're opposing a modest and well thought out proposed change because its not like how it is in the tabletop or the books.

Nobody cares how it was in the tabletop and books.

I CARE.

Edited by HammerMaster, 05 May 2021 - 12:10 PM.

[pbiggz]

HammerMaster, on 05 May 2021 - 12:10 PM, said:

I CARE.

Well then its a good thing you don't make games.

[CoffeeKitty]

pbiggz, on 05 May 2021 - 07:27 AM, said:

To the people opposing this because they think he wants it as a paid feature;

are you actually children? he's being sarcastic. he's saying he'd give up his left *** to get a feature in the game that we should have had the whole time not that he wants to pay for it while you cant.



meaningless. this isn't battletech, where you wait for repairs and configuration changes to be done. This is a shooter game that happens in real time. Put your tabletop nonsense away.



As opposed to 24 meta mechs in every map? Every game has a meta. Every change will give rise to a new meta. You cant avoid it, and seriously, your answer to every proposed improvement to the game cant be "bUt tHe mEtA iS oPpReSsIvE". You're like a NIMBY with mechs.

Seriously. We have not had nice things for so long that whenever someone comes along to suggest something nice, you guys bomb the thread with mechdad tabletop complaints and fearmongering about meta mechs, then turn around later and complain about how the meta is boring, theres no diversity in maps, too much nascarring, and short match times.

The answers are in front of you. They've been repeated many times. A pre-match lobby. Dropdecks in quickplay. Respawning in quickplay. Amplified weather and environment conditions. Rotating spawn and objective locations.

We should all be asking for all of these things, not crying about how if something changes, then there might be a meta!?

id gladly pool together 500 and probably could get more from my freinds to fund the developers for such a simple feature to be added to the game for everyone. i didn't think that needed to be clarified lol

but yeah of course i wouldnt want it an exclusive feature to any player, nor payed, i was just trying to illustrate how much it would improve the game

also..

"The answers are in front of you. They've been repeated many times. A pre-match lobby. Dropdecks in quickplay. Respawningin quickplay. Amplified weather and environment conditions. Rotating spawn and objective locations."

this is such a big illumination as to why MWLL has so much staying power with me and those who play it, despite it being made with quite literally zero funding and by a few fans, and being over 12 years old, which is twice the age of MWO. the battlefield evolves over the course of a match, objectives change, engagements change, and doctrine as a result changes to meet it, i think asking for rotating spawns and objective locations and even respawning/dropdecks i think could be beyond scope of even what PGI is willing to do with these recent improvements to the game, but if they're seriously considering reverting the rescale ********, i really want to keep the ball rolling here, and this loadout idea is something i've been pushing for for literally 2 years, since those XML files were first added to the game in ~2018, since then they've gotten as ton of validation checks and improvements on the backend to ensure they work well (remember being able to slot 50 tcomps? lmao). now i think its time to take that system one tiny step further.

i dont think PGI needs to shovel thousands of manhours into the game to achieve greatness, MWO is already a good game, but what im pointing out is one of those things that really should not take very much effort but would at least for me, double, triple, or even quadruple the time and money im willing to put in the game. i've already supported PGI by buying dozens of mechpacks, and have years of premium time banked, and im probably reaching a point where i may move on from MWO, even with these minor balance tweaks. that's not to say that the cauldron changes haven't been great, they have. and i've had the most fun i've had with the game since 2018 when i played FW reguarly. i just dont think it will last very long if every match i have to chose between having a bland generalist mech to perform well, or play obscure builds ithink ill enjoy but throw matches for my team 3-4 times before i roll a map that makes sense for the fit i chose.

Edited by CoffeeKitty, 05 May 2021 - 02:20 PM.

[HammerMaster]

pbiggz, on 05 May 2021 - 01:23 PM, said:

Well then its a good thing you don't make games.

Rude.

[CoffeeKitty]

Wolfos31, on 05 May 2021 - 09:16 AM, said:

It'd be kind of neat if this feature was created. But I don't really care if it never comes about either.

Hate to say it but anytime someone complains about this I tend to think they're not very good at working their mech & the map to their benefit. Sure I'm frustrated when I'm in a sniping mech and the map is Solaris City, or I'm in a dual UAC20 brawler and the map is Polar Highlands. But the challenge and fun of the game is overcoming the challenges you're presented with and coming out on top anyway.

That said, the argument for is greater than against. In the real world a military force is going to prepare for the battlefield as best they possibly can. In MWO that would mean we should be able to anticipate the range profile we'll be engaging at.

i understand where you come from here, but i have a lot of experience and i know how to make every build i've made work to the best of it's ability, but the best of its ability ranges drastically on each map and each profile of fight, and as such the best of a builds ability my be too little or too much relative to my own team and my enemy team due to randomness of map selection vs the mech i queued for, which means that im either given an unfair advantage or unfair disadvantage through no skill or agency of my own. this means that the objectively best mechs to pilot are always going to be mechs that can function on all maps to some extent, while maintaining high alpha PPFLD or high dps burst. there is a reason why gauss vomit was so dominant for years, a deathstrike running a meta gaussvomit can function in nearly every situation to a high degree and has very little glaring vulnerabilities that aren't huge mistakes made by the pilot, whereas if you decide to play a similar config CQC brawlfit you have half the range, a lot more dps and sustained pushing power, but if your team is all gauss and pokefits youll have to push solo to make anything happen. you're tier 1, you're an experienced player, you can't be missing what im talking about here, theres no way you're blind to the reality of how the match flow of this game works, i refuse to believe that.

and i think you seem to miss that this isn't solaris 1v1s, my choices of how i choose to say stall for 5 minutes in a cqc mech on polar highlands multiplied by 2-4 other mechs in similar situations due to how map voting when we're faced against a dakka line of 700m fits and we cant push past nomans land or flank with out dying instantly results in a lost match where not even the best players in the game could really change the outcome with out some absurd level of tactics and team coordination.

at the end of the day this is a competitive 12v12 game, and if i roll the wrong mech for the wrong map, or as vlad has pointed out, the wrong mech for the wrong team synergy, i could not only contribute poorly compared to where i am skill wise as a player, but i could actively throw the match for my team. i think putting a blanket statement of "lol get gud" doesnt really address the issues present in a zero sum competitive situation.

Edited by CoffeeKitty, 05 May 2021 - 01:44 PM.

[CoffeeKitty]

Vlad Ward, on 05 May 2021 - 09:24 AM, said:

Team synergy doesn't seem to matter right now in QP because it's impossible to take advantage of it without a group. The whole reason groups are so powerful is because groups are able to coordinate builds.

I feel like folks really need to recalibrate their POV a bit if Map Synergy is the only thing that comes to mind when we talk about Mech Select.

I'd love respawns and the ability to switch 'Mechs to adapt to evolving situations, personally. That's a different conversation, though.

this is precisely what i've been trying to convey in a more concise way, groups are dominant due to their ability to not only control the map but also the flow of battle and the most important thing is lance synergy, maps do play second fiddle here but it's added onto their own coordination. the only thing that is different if the change i proposed is implemented is that random solo qued and solo minded players' individual mech choices will more closely resemble coordinated teams mech choices, thus reducing the overall match infidelity and improving the quality of matchmaking, and the game experience as a whole, while adding a collosally large level of team coordination and synergy to the game, thus increasing the depth of play, and thus enjoyment, significantly.

also i know that there are way better things to implement but theres a reason the scope is so narrow in what i suggested, i think things need to be reasonably obtainable for the manpower that pgi can or will allocate to a given issue.

i'm a software developer myself and it's really hard to quantify how difficult even this may be to implement, and its a hard sell since there likely can be little to no ROI on such a change.

[CoffeeKitty]

Nightbird, on 05 May 2021 - 09:56 AM, said:

I play FP because I can play a much much larger variety of mechs by knowing the map and mode before I drop. In QP, you're stuck with a few generalist mechs unless you want to be at the mercy of the map vote.

precisely this, i think most players have internalized this behavior so deep that they may not realize how much of the game's potential builds they've removed from their lexicon, not even subconciously adknowleding the fact that of all the builds that you can make in mwo, ony the tiniest of potential fits can really function in the randomness of the map selections.

in my OP i tried to outline how in FP you have a lot of situations where you know the map (or at least the gamemode) you're going to before you make your DD, and you have a coordination period with people when you drop as FP is often more cooridnated to even get a queue going.

as a result you see a lot of specalist mechs like large tcomp snipers, scout lights with tag, multiple uavs and narcs.

compare that to QP where the last 3 conquests i've landed on had 0 lights on one team and a proper balanced tonnage on the other team team resulting in a landslide of caps 3 times. while my solution would not entirely remedy this, players would likely have a range of engine sizes in their loadouts that they could pull from, resulting in mediums and heavies being able to bridge gaps a bit more in these situations.

any bad faith person would say "just play a light then *******" to which my response is you're making my point for me, if i then drop tonnage to play a light and que into a map and gamemode that doesn't favor lights, and the enemy lance has no lights, suddenly we're at an arbitrary disadvantage. my entire point is that deviating from the highest point on the bell curve of balanced meta builds that function in the highest number of situations, is a statistically inferior move to make for your performance across a large sample size. only in coordinated play does this deviate, and that includes dropping with just one extra person in your lance. the larger the coordination, the larger the deviation from this bell curve peak can you move. my proposed suggestion would flatten the top of the bell curve SIGNIFCANTLY.

I dont care that i specifically lose because of this, i care that this creates a canyon of unbalance in the game that can't ever be accounted for.

this creates a permanent tilt of statistics and skews all data collection in a way that is unhealthy for balancing purposes and theres just generally no reason for it to exist in a game.

i've never before played a game with such an arbitrary design flaw, and never will again i reckon.

also yall need to chill with the flaming and hostilities, so please keep it civil.

it's an inevitability no Realtime adaptation can be pointed directly from a tabletop, that needs to be accepted and compensated for, im a huge fan of tabletop myself but i dont think that approach is necessarily healthy for game balance, and furthermore flaming people for having that opinion isn't appropriate either

Edited by CoffeeKitty, 05 May 2021 - 02:35 PM.

[CoffeeKitty]

Kaeb Odellas, on 05 May 2021 - 12:08 PM, said:

Am I the only one who gets excited when they get a bad map for their loadout? Making the best of a bad situation is interesting in a video game! Put your thinking caps on and make it work!

don't get me wrong im not trying to say that there isnt joy to be had in the chaos of the status quo, but i dont think that's positive design for a game that prides itself on competitive balance.

the same can be said for matching PSR1 with PSR5 players, when you're psr5 it can be fun to try to survive the onslaught that you're not equipped to deal with, but that doesnt mean the whole game should be designed in such a way that results in that situation as not only being often, but the majority of all matches if you are not at the high end of generalized strength.

i totally do have matches where i bring some franken cursed mech into a match and try to make it work, like a 6 ERLL stalker, which anywhere otuside of alpine or polar is basically asking for death but its certainly fun to try to make it work on mining collective.

and the flipside is true too, me trying to limit test what can be generalized, like this https://mech.nav-alp...d7fa61be_MAD-3R cursed pile of discount dan's mechparts.

I totally get this take, and if this was another game, i'd say "well honestly thats okay, quickplay is for chaos, ranked/FP/CW is for balance"

but unfortunately, QP is the only way to consistently get a match, so i personally feel it should be balanced to the best of PGI's ability for match fidelity, even if that removes some of the chaos of you getting put in the wrong situation for the mech you've chosen, does that make any sense? the brief fleeting joy i get from the chaos is far less than the frustration that actively makes me quit a game i've sank thousands of dollars into for long stretches of time to go to play a free mod that doesnt even have a mechlab from 12 years ago because that game actually has balanced matches and feels rewarding to play.

i know ima get roasted for that last comment. mwo is a better product, but holy hell is it frustrating to deal with this one particular issue being the cause of so much imbalance, meta stagnation, and poor community behavior.

i could even make the case that nascar rotations are a pretty significant resulting symptom of years of being exposed to this issue resulting in a narrow band of range profile and symmetric engagements of mechs on both sides.

asymmetric engagements are far more prevalent in FP.

Psycho da Clown, on 05 May 2021 - 02:08 PM, said:

Don't know either of you two people but you sort of seem to be the immature one in your back-n-forth with them. Real snappy too. Seem really really mad.

i respect that your first post on this forum is making fun of the bickering, 11/10 lol

Edited by CoffeeKitty, 05 May 2021 - 02:13 PM.

[Koopak]

HammerMaster, on 05 May 2021 - 12:02 PM, said:

OmniMechs are what addresses the "where are we dropping" issue.
The fact that it wasn't implemented properly doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it in the first place.
At this point yes. It's not gonna happen.
Snowflake mechs never should have been a thing and that's what I decry.
What we have, well I guess its what we have.
I don't have to agree with it.

So what you are saying is that we should adhere to table top and only have official vairents with the exception of omnimechs. Considering the fan base of MechWarrior have had access to complete mech customization since MechWarrior 2 (which included clan battlemechs, not just omnimechs) I think its pretty clear the core fanbase expects customization.

Now i do run near stock configs (up tuned to scale with tech level) for fun, but most people see the MechWarrior series as a "make your dream machine" game. The ownership of designing something and using it to win matches matters ALOT to people, its personal customization and actualization.

Now if you consider that not to be what YOU want, thats fair, thus i would direct you to MechWarrior Living Legends, or any of the single player games. If you want hard core commitment to the lore, heck, id like that game too, but this is not, and never was suggested to be or meant to be what you are defining as your ideal MechWarrior title. In your own posts you essentially admit, that your opinion is irreverent to the conversation by stating that the game never even started in the same neighborhood as the ideal you hold, and the devs never had any interest in that direction.

You are looking for another game entirely, and i understand that, but its not a legitimate argument against this, or any other change. To me that's the same as saying Chivalry needs to adhere to the rules of Chainmail, or heck Chess... its just not the same game, no matter the asthetical similarities.

Kaeb Odellas, on 05 May 2021 - 12:08 PM, said:

Am I the only one who gets excited when they get a bad map for their loadout? Making the best of a bad situation is interesting in a video game! Put your thinking caps on and make it work!

This can be resolved by making it so you choose your loadout, not mech. So if yer in a UAC 10 quirked brawl god mech, best you can do is run a weaker fit for better range on Polar Highlands, or, as you said, try to make the brawl fit work. As was outline earlier there is also the team synergy to consider. If you are in a medium laser Hunchy, and yer on a team with all ppcs and gauss, i don't care how good you are, you are NOT going to do well on a long range map with a team that doesn't want to close and support you.

With loadout selection the team can agree to fit a lance of brawlers and send them in to break up the enemy firing line, or if they don't, you can switch to a large laser fit, and not feel worthless. Trust me I am all about Improvise, Adapt, Overcome, but there are limits, and MOST people don't enjoy trying to do something they believe is impossible, like taking a small pulse Nova against an army of snipers with no support in open terrain.

[Anjian]

Vlad Ward, on 05 May 2021 - 09:24 AM, said:

Team synergy is more important than Map synergy. You do need time to talk to the other 11 folks dropping with you and figure out what everyone is doing.

Pre-made groups would likely be already on some chat and would have already, it not quickly determined what they will drop with. A PUG on the other hand is going to drop whatever they have or want, or whatever they feel they are good at, or specialized with.

Quote

Honestly, this feels like an extremely limited perspective. Team synergy doesn't seem to matter right now in QP because it's impossible to take advantage of it without a group. The whole reason groups are so powerful is because groups are able to coordinate builds.

I feel like folks really need to recalibrate their POV a bit if Map Synergy is the only thing that comes to mind when we talk about Mech Select.

A bit of extra time before going on to games is not going to solve the lack of communication or team synergy issue. People will drop whatever they have or like, or what they prefer to use if you are dealing with a PUG. In the end, it can boil down to having enough experience among the better players in the group, to grasp the situation between map/team/phase synergy.

Map = Picking the best choice for the map, its terrain and weather conditions.
Team = Picking the best choice given your team composition
Phase = Picking the best choice for that phase of the match.

I have been in enough, or far too many games, involving team battles with drop decks even with no limit on the time you can select what you want to drop with.

With really good map design --- completely absent in MWO --- there is going to be avenues for both brawling and sniping, for long range, medium range, and short range. When you have added objectives, usually the capture and defense of a point, that will add further to the specialization. A smart game designer will not and should not allow the player base to be complacent into depending on a meta build or a generalist build; they are going to keep forcing you to specialist content, and forcing you to accept the consequences of such a build, while providing more build choices. Part of this rationale is that the game developers also needs to keep selling you content. If a drop deck will say, have all four or five mechs of the same build, to deal with all maps, for all team composition, for all phases, then the developer has failed.

[Vlad Ward]

I'm not sure why you're treating these like they need to be separate priorities. Map design and enhancement is a level designer's job. Gameplay features are an engineer's job. PGI can do both if they choose to.

So long as the potential for team cohesion exists, the players who choose to take advantage of it will perform better than teams that don't. If people really insist on sticking to the current paradigm of "Drop in whatever the hell you want, screw everyone else" they can go sink to T4/5. There's still a game for them to play there.

Adding Mech Select simply grants that potential to players who are dropping solo. They have an option which allows them to perform better that they didn't have before.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 05 May 2021 - 05:46 PM.

[Anjian]

Vlad Ward, on 05 May 2021 - 05:44 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you're treating these like they need to be separate priorities. Map design and enhancement is a level designer's job. Gameplay features are an engineer's job. PGI can do both if they choose to.

So long as the potential for team cohesion exists, the players who choose to take advantage of it will perform better than teams that don't. If people really insist on sticking to the current paradigm of "Drop in whatever the hell you want, screw everyone else" they can go sink to T4/5. There's still a game for them to play there.

Adding Mech Select simply grants that potential to players who are dropping solo. They have an option which allows them to perform better that they didn't have before.

There is no doubt that selection by drop deck works. You got many games that's already doing this. It gets only better, even much better, when joined and reinforced by other factors such as respawn, objective based game play, revolving content, and better map design.

[CoffeeKitty]

Anjian, on 05 May 2021 - 06:02 PM, said:

There is no doubt that selection by drop deck works. You got many games that's already doing this. It gets only better, even much better, when joined and reinforced by other factors such as respawn, objective based game play, revolving content, and better map design.

much this, i play a lot of games that are "similar" to mwo in their metagame and lobby structure, WoT, WoWs, warthunder, star conflcit, etc. and all of these games basically have dropdecks, and while yeah their whole crew monetization bs sucks, and even in mwo dropdecks are way too much MC, i'd still rather use dropdecks if i could in qp

honestly even just giving us our dropdeck and letting us select only 1 mech at the beginning of the round would do a lot, (yeah you'd limit all the mechs on the drop deck to be the same tonnage for matchmaking purposes, a QP dropdeck, if you will.

that'd be a neat but inferior alternative to what im askin with the loadouts.

Edited by CoffeeKitty, 06 May 2021 - 02:34 AM.