214 replies to this topic

[Raptor8009]

Freaking Epic I love it

[Hawker]

Just for clarification: the benefits are per chassis not per weight class?
I would have rather seen it per weight class.

From what I remember in the images that are not available anymore, the unlocked benefits were sporting 2.5%. I think instead of a percentage, it should be a fixed rate due to the variances in chassis as some will benefit a lot more from a percentage than others.

Still overall it is much like a leveling system and I just hope that the benefits aren't too overpowering so that someone in a new chassis isn't going to be too handicapped against someone in a maxed chassis.

[Min0taur]

I assume it is too soon to ask, but can you reset your Mech tech tree (free or for a price, F2P after all)?...

Edited by Min0taur, 29 June 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[MMax]

It sounds really promising to me! But additional armour or weapon firepower would be sth I don't feel confident with...

[Mussie076]

WOW This is going to be so much more than all the other mech games we have seen

Edited by Mussie076, 20 July 2012 - 05:41 AM.

[Shammus]

The leveling up system sounds similar to World of Tanks, which is fine. I am looking forward to seeing some information or screen shots of the tech trees.

[Zombie SixNine]

Jon Vekken, on 01 February 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

I think the majority of players will end up being assault role regardless of thier mech.

I don't think thats going to be an issue...I for one love the scout role...seems a lot of people do from what I keep reading.

[Zombie SixNine]

Hawker, on 24 June 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Just for clarification: the benefits are per chassis not per weight class?
I would have rather seen it per weight class.

From what I remember in the images that are not available anymore, the unlocked benefits were sporting 2.5%. I think instead of a percentage, it should be a fixed rate due to the variances in chassis as some will benefit a lot more from a percentage than others.

Still overall it is much like a leveling system and I just hope that the benefits aren't too overpowering so that someone in a new chassis isn't going to be too handicapped against someone in a maxed chassis.

Will there be a Tier system (WoT)? Anybody come across information in FAQ's or such?

[Pocket Psycho]

Melcyna, on 22 June 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

By doing exactly what scouts ought to be doing, ie: scouting the enemy and providing the team with the enemy location info and targeting telemetry for LRM and what not.

detecting the enemy and providing LRM lock signal for the team presumably gives set amount of XP, same as destroying or blowing off mech parts, so as long as the scout actually do it's job as a scout ie: detecting the enemy for the team and being the eye for the team then he should do fine.

Exactly, also a good scout lance will need to be adept at harassing as well to make it harder for the enemy missile boats to rain death on the rest of your company. That Raven or Jenner may not be doing much damage while running away, but the 'Mechs chasing them aren't doing much damage to your team either.

[Jakob Knight]

It's a pity that the Devs have taken the attitude that core statements about the game ("No third person view" becomes "third person view if it will avoid making players feel uncomfortable") are to be cast aside and forgotten as soon as convenient. I was looking forwards to Role Warfare as a Fire Support pilot, but as implementation of ECM has proven, the Devs don't believe any Roles but brawler and scout should be in their game.

Disappointing, really. MWO had such promise until the Devs gave up on their own standards.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 11 December 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[Syllogy]

Jakob Knight, on 11 December 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

It's a pity that the Devs have taken the attitude that core statements about the game ("No third person view" becomes "third person view if it will avoid making players feel uncomfortable") are to be cast aside and forgotten as soon as convenient. I was looking forwards to Role Warfare as a Fire Support pilot, but as implementation of ECM has proven, the Devs don't believe any Roles but brawler and scout should be in their game. Disappointing, really. MWO had such promise until the Devs gave up on their own standards.

No Fire Support? Ever play a Cataphract?

The Devs never said "No Third Person View"

Russ Bullock is not the Creative Director. he is the CEO, and as such, does not dictate which direction the game goes on 3rd Person View.

Understand the structure of PGI before you make bold statements that criticize the devs without knowing what goes on behind the curtains.

[Jakob Knight]

Syllogy, on 11 December 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

No Fire Support? Ever play a Cataphract?

The Devs never said "No Third Person View"

Russ Bullock is not the Creative Director. he is the CEO, and as such, does not dictate which direction the game goes on 3rd Person View.

Understand the structure of PGI before you make bold statements that criticize the devs without knowing what goes on behind the curtains.

Cataphracts are brawlers, being direct-fire units. Catapults, on the other hand, are indirect fire units, and so are support units. Care to quantify your statements with an LRM Catapult in mind?

And to say the -CEO- is not to be taken as the word on how a company's product will proceed is....confusing. If the -CEO- says something, I would wonder a great deal about any company that allowed a Director to overrule them. And if the CEO said something in direct contradiction to what the Director states, then it is a clear message that the company is -not- dedicated to anything they say, and everything is to be viewed as smoke and mirrors.

Regardless, all of this strikes deeply into the expectations I and others had for this game, and it is a pity considering what this game was stated to be.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 11 December 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[Buckminster]

Also, this is BETA. ECM seems overpowered, but it's only been out for a week. Give it time, give the developers a chance to tweak it and provide counters to it before you make such a statement as "the Devs don't believe any roles but brawler and scout should be in their game."

Do you remember how nasty LRMs were after the Artemis patch? How many people said "I guess the Devs don't believe any roles but brawler and scout LRM mechs should be in their game." It's still in development. Things change.

And frankly, as some one that only pilots Catapults, fire support is alive and well - PPCs or LRMs, I still get my kills.

Edited by Buckminster, 11 December 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Syllogy]

Jakob Knight, on 11 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Cataphracts are brawlers, being direct-fire units. Catapults, on the other hand, are indirect fire units, and so are support units. Care to quantify your statements with an LRM Catapult in mind?

And to say the -CEO- is not to be taken as the word on how a company's product will proceed is....confusing. If the -CEO- says something, I would wonder a great deal about any company that allowed a Director to overrule them. And if the CEO said something in direct contradiction to what the Director states, then it is a clear message that the company is -not- dedicated to anything they say, and everything is to be viewed as smoke and mirrors.

Regardless, all of this strikes deeply into the expectations I and others had for this game, and it is a pity considering what this game was stated to be.

When my Hunchback, Awesome, Atlas, and Raven can all thrash a Cataphract in a close-range fight, it's not a Brawler. It's Direct Fire Support.

Also, a huge part of a Mech's role is determined by it's pilot. That's why there are successful Dragon Scouts, Cicada Brawlers, and Atlas LRM Boats.

Regardless, please explain to me how 3rd Person is such a Heartbreaker?

Crying "But he said he wouldn't!" isn't a valid excuse, and the whole concept of "3rd Person will divide the community!" is as bad as hearing Al Sharpton declare that "There would be blood in the streets!" if people were allowed to openly carry a firearm.

[Jakob Knight]

Syllogy, on 11 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

When my Hunchback, Awesome, Atlas, and Raven can all thrash a Cataphract in a close-range fight, it's not a Brawler. It's Direct Fire Support.

Also, a huge part of a Mech's role is determined by it's pilot. That's why there are successful Dragon Scouts, Cicada Brawlers, and Atlas LRM Boats.

Regardless, please explain to me how 3rd Person is such a Heartbreaker?

Crying "But he said he wouldn't!" isn't a valid excuse, and the whole concept of "3rd Person will divide the community!" is as bad as hearing Al Sharpton declare that "There would be blood in the streets!" if people were allowed to openly carry a firearm.

Your citing a Cataphract as Direct Fire Support is without merit, as any direct-fire unit can, by definition, engage in Brawling, and is therefore a Brawling unit. An LRM Catapult, by comparison, -cannot- engage in brawling with it's LRMs, and so is a Fire Support unit. You avoided my request you answer that issue, and instead made claim that, because your direct-fire mech lost to other direct-fire mechs, it must be a fire-support unit. That's non-sequetor, as the Cataphract is, by definition, a direct-fire mech, and therefore a Brawler. If you want to keep on with this line of conversation, we'll explore exactly how a mech that is forced to be indirect fire in the game differs from a mech forced to confront an enemy head on. However, I'd assume you'd be aware of the fundamental differences between the two, and will save us both time.

As to discounting what a company says and then later contradicts itself, that isn't an excuse but a clear violation of statement. When an entity says one thing, then says something that contradicts what they said, that is the definition of lying. Excuses, by contrast, are attempts to justify a statement with further statements which ignore the base issue involved. With that in mind, I would say your own statements are more excuse than my calling a company to task for contradicting in word and action their own stated goals and values in their product.

The fact is that one company representative indicated to the community in direct communication to the consumers that there would be no Third Person in MWO. Subsequently, a company representative indicated to the community that there would be Third Person in MWO. Another fact is that Indirect Fire Support was one of the Roles the Devs stated a pilot could specialize in and one of the core Roles in their game, and then implemented a system designed specifically to remove Indirect Fire Support from their game.

This is why these are such heartbreakers, because they strike directly at the inherent trust that consumers must have that a company they buy services or product from are being truthful and trading in good faith. We expected better of the Devs of this game, and such heartbreak is valid given the grand vision of the game presented to us when we were given the opportunity to become Founders of that product.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 11 December 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[Buckminster]

I disagree that direct fire = brawler. I have a pair of PPCs that says that short range is no good. I try to spend my time at ~500-700km, where I can just unload into people. If I want to get up close and brawl, that's what the SRM Cat is for.

[Tolkien]

Buckminster, on 11 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Also, this is BETA. ECM seems overpowered, but it's only been out for a week. Give it time, give the developers a chance to tweak it and provide counters to it before you make such a statement as "the Devs don't believe any roles but brawler and scout should be in their game."

Do you remember how nasty LRMs were after the Artemis patch? How many people said "I guess the Devs don't believe any roles but brawler and scout LRM mechs should be in their game." It's still in development. Things change.

And frankly, as some one that only pilots Catapults, fire support is alive and well - PPCs or LRMs, I still get my kills.

It's an unnerving situation when you see someone pull hard one direction then back the other - whether they are driving a car or balancing a game veering erratically is still a cause for concern.

Let's review what ECM does in its current form:


It is a 1.5 ton 2 slot piece of equipment that can counter

Artemis
BAP
Tag bonuses (and the whole system inside of 180m)
NARC - a system which takes more space, weighs more, requires real coordination and skill and has ammo.
other ECMs
LRM locks
SRM locks
general targeting info is all messed up inside of 180m
general targeting info can only be had in an 18 metre thick ribbon around them between 181 and 199metres of range if you want to relay it to teammates
relegates AMS to be very very case dependent
has no exploding ammo
generates no heat
cost less than a module by a factor of 15

This is after dev notes stating that they toned it down after some internal playtesting... good god, I want some of what they are smoking and want to get a look at the version that didn't go live.... I bet it also shut down enemy mech engines within 400 metres.

[Buckminster]

First things first - I do think ECM is a bit OP at the moment. It doesn't belong on the Atlas, and they should not have released it until they had a proper counter in place. (I do know that the ECM can counter other ECMs, but that limits your counter to 4 mechs, and in PUGs most people won't give up their ECM protection to take down someone elses). It's definitely had a huge impact on the game, but by no means is it worth all of this "MWO is over - I quit" crying that we've been seeing.

And sure, ECM has a lot of perks. But it has it's downsides too:
With the exception of the Atlas, it is only on mechs that weight at most 40 tons. So 2 tons is about 5% of their weight, 10% on the poor Commando.
It doesn't block PPCs
It doesn't block A/Cs
It doesn't block lasers
It doesn't block SRMs
It is jammable by another ECM

And honestly, a lot of the problems could be addressed through matchmaker. A team with no ECM is going to have trouble against a team with 2-3 ECM. Balance the amount of ECM per side, and it evens out a lot.

I say again, ECM is a bit OP at the moment. But the way to address is is not with "PGI - I want a refund" threads. Make constructive comments, and adjust your tactics. My PPC K2 isn't bothered at all by ECM.

[Tolkien]

Buckminster, on 11 December 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

And sure, ECM has a lot of perks. But it has it's downsides too:
With the exception of the Atlas, it is only on mechs that weight at most 40 tons. So 2 tons is about 5% of their weight, 10% on the poor Commando.
It doesn't block PPCs
It doesn't block A/Cs
It doesn't block lasers
It doesn't block SRMs
It is jammable by another ECM
...

Those are not downsides, those are the few things it doesn't do....

A BAP has the same tonnage and crit slot requirement as the ECM.


It doesn't block PPCs
It doesn't block A/Cs
It doesn't block lasers
It doesn't block SRMs
It doesn't block LRMs
It doesn't block streak SRMs
It doesn't mess with enemy situational awareness
It doesn't make you untargetable outside of spitting distance
It doesn't make your teammates untargetable outside of spitting distance
It doesn't counter ECM
It doesn't counter NARC
It doesn't counter TAG
It doesn't counter ARTEMIS IV
It doesn't counter other BAPs
It is jammable by an ECM that isn't too busy jamming another ECM...

Again - what you listed for ECM are not drawbacks, those are the few items preventing it from being the 'anti everything' pod.

Phrased another way - for less than the weight of a medium pulse laser you can passively disrupt a laundry list of systems.

Edited by Tolkien, 11 December 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[Buckminster]

Tolkien, on 11 December 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Again - what you listed for ECM are not drawbacks, those are the few items preventing it from being the 'anti everything' pod.

Well, that's my point really. It isn't an "anti-everything pod", but if you read half the threads on the forum you'd think that you can't play and have fun or be effective if you don't have ECM. That's a load of crap, and people seem to think that making rant threads about how ECM is OP and they want a refund if it's not nerfed NOW is going to help. Instead, they should be coming up with points to help tone down how stupid ECM is (take it off the Atlas, make BAP counter it, make 1 'Counter' ECM jam all ECMs in range, make an ECCM unit that acts as an ECM in permanent 'Counter' mode, but mountable on all mechs) it's all QQ. It's the exact same thing we saw when Artemis first came out. It'll be exactly what we see when Clan stuff starts coming around.

I've seen people say that their Cat A1 is useless because Streaks are useless now. Mine runs 3 SSRM and 3SRM6, and is still quite effective against all mechs. Can't streak a light? 3 SRM6 certainly hurts too. Can't SRM6 lights? Learn to aim.

I've seen people say that all they see is cap rushing. I've certainly seen it. I've also still seen all out brawls in the Caldera.

I've seen people say that LRMs are useless. I've also seen them rain missiley death.

I've seen people say that lights are the only thing worth taking because they can't get hit. I've also sniped Jenners at 800m with my PPCs.

I just wish people would stop with all the stupid doom and gloom crap. The game is not dead. PGI hasn't ruined anything. And above else - IT'S BETA. Help mold the game, don't just whine about it.