46 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

what about rock/paper/scissors/lizard/Spock?

[MaddMaxx]

snip

Quote

"We don't know when or if the in-game time-line will get to 3058 (the canon deployment date for Reflective Armor).
We don't know if the Devs will wait that long to release Reflective Armor for player use.
We don't know if Reflective Armor will be released for player use.
We don't know if the MWO implementation of Reflective Armor will feature its canonical strengths and weaknesses.
We don't know how, when, or if LI Missiles would be implemented.
We don't know when or if the in-game time-line will get to 3053 (the canon deployment date for LI Missiles).
We don't know with certainty if the CLPT-C3 will be implemented (though, it was alluded to in the 12/03/2011 ISN post).

Great post. Sadly after the quoted section above I became despondent about how little we actually do know.

[Yeach]

Maybe you should be able to mount machine guns and use them as a dual-role of AMS and machine gun vs infantry.
This is on the grounds that some mechs have machine guns but without the infantry and other vehicles initially, it doesn't make as much sense to have mechs mounting machine guns.

Edited by Yeach, 19 February 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Phades]

@strum

I laughed, i cried, my eyes went derp.

I don't see how you can seriously compare an artillery ranged, indirect fire capable, guided, large persisting area of effect weapon to a weapon with an effective range only 3x the AOE on the first weapon, affects a single target, and is dumb fired. Then you follow it up with suggesting countering the artillery ranged weapon with a melee attack of which we have no knowledge of how it will work (does it have full effect on partial collisions? does it rate the difference in relative speeds? does it rate in only direct velocity or is it adjusted based upon any velocity changes with course corrections? does it register at low speed? how is the transfer of energy handled? ... lol). This is going beyond the fallacy of bringing only a knife to a gun fight and having to run across several kilometers potentially in order to eliminate the problem unit and survive doing so without returning fire against other machines who are protecting it. Although if you think that will be fun, I am sure you also like using sand paper to clean your skin instead of hand sanitizer. Then you suggest that there is no issue with having a persisting effect we will refer to as pixie dust, where it will eliminate shots aimed perfectly on target roughly 1 in 6 times barring all other external or internal factors and imply that this would be a good game mechanic that is universally player friendly. Where as if you were to compare it to smoke effects obscuring vision of the player making a harder shot for the player to judge and not relying on pixie dust and RNG to determine the outcome barring player intervention (how it happens, not what stating it just doesn't).

Then there is there is the fact you seem to be failing to follow thoughts to the logical conclusions, especially in regard to your (act?) indicating you made no consideration to AMS devices which play into the basic concept of rock, paper, scissors that you are supporting here of which only the timmy personality really tends to find enjoyable.

In all honesty, there really is no point in dredging up nearly 20 years worth of game examples where this game style of play creates a negative play environment over time and invariably leads to a musical chairs game balance development of FOTM that drives away core player bases over time. This is mainly due to the fact that you are (deliberately?) failing to acknowledge how each element would work when combined together in the environment.

Edited by Phades, 23 February 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[Sleeve98]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 15 February 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

At the time of launch we will have Standard armour and possibly access to Ferro Fibrous for customising.

Ooooooh. A miss.

And by Sturm Wealh's citations, (and the devs' adherence to the real-time dogma) it'll be 2021a.d. before we're playing with Reflective armor.

Another miss. The Rock-Paper-Scissors system of competing weapons/armor (in scope >/= MW4) is a strategic dimension that shouldn't be lost, IMHO (forces you to think when working your load-out), but it could cost the favor of the canon purists and, come to think of it, might overcomplicate things for newbies.

Also, I miss the directional jump jets from MW3. Saved my bacon a lot.

[Aegis Kleais]

ManDaisy, on 11 February 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Laser:
Advantage: Greatest Accuracy, Instant Travel, Good at shooting down missiles due to "Duration" of fire
DrawBack: Heat, Hold on Target Damage Over Time, "very little" if at all any knocks

Is < Less Then

Bullets:

Advantage: Full Damage On Impact, Less Heat, Big Knocks
DrawBack: Recoil Inaccuracy, Shorter Range for Big Punchers, Bad at shooting down missiles "Duration of fire eats ammo"
Has travel Time, or burst fire needs better targeting .

Is < Less Then

Missiles

Advantage: Full Damage On Impact, Longest Range, Big Knocks, Homing
DrawBack: Ammo Limits, Hard to hit at short range, Can't shoot down other missiles.

Is < Less Then

Lasers, - shoot down missiles easiest.

Lasers< Bullets< Missiles< Lasers

I don't really subscribe to this since weapons don't fight or counter weapons. Weapons are countered by armor. So let's say you have reactive armor (against missiles), reinforced armor (against ballistics) and reflective armor (against energy). Now you can use the "better than" equation because you're comparing a weapon (offense) against an armor (defense).

[Steel Talon]

Reactive armor is build to counter projectiles based on cumulative charge, that is most of missiles, but AC/20, AC/10 may even some AC/5 aswell