532 replies to this topic

[Alexa Steel]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 November 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

TT One can fire both Medium lasers in an Alpha strike style to the end of the game unless said Centurion has Engine Crits. Cause 2 Meds generate 6 heat per turn and has more than enough sinks to handle the heat load indefinitely. If Mediums fired every 3.5 Seconds and Sinks vented every 4 seconds the heat load would be more managable yet still build heat over time. A better example is the Panther. It has a PPC and 14 sinks. It can run and fire the PPC non stop in BattleTech. I tried this in the MMO...

See thats what I would find boring.

Quote

...
...
The results were the same. I over heated to quickly. Again a Cyclic of 3.5 seconds with a disipation rate at 4 seconds would eventually build heat if I fire the PPC AND SRM4. The Canon does not have Minobu Tetsuhara overheating and shutting down every 3rd shot of Katana Cats PPC. He does sweat, and he does have a warning but he can keep fighting.

Still from a gameplay perspective I would find that to be very boring and not skillfull at all.

But I understand where you are coming from.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Agreed.



You would also have no progression that is tangible, why I agree that model is really hard on new users, it also one of the only options to have tangible progression at all in a MW game that is played online and is not just MW4 but online. And progression needs to be part of the game, otherwise many players wont play it.

I certainly wouldn´t login as much as I do atm, I can tell that I already do not login as much as before, because I have all the tech. Sure I enjoy blasting other players mechs, but I want to have some sort of goal. For many that is an upgrade for their favourite machine.

We could argue if that is the right way to play it, but that argument wouldnt bring us anywhere.

your answer says volume's about the fun or the actual experience of the game. Grind's are created because the core of a game is very boring without them. They are an easy way of providing both an experience of progressing and at the same time creating something to work towards, which plays on the human perception of purpose.

What you are saying is confirming that because, without something to grind for, you become disinterested in the game. That doesn't mean the game HAS to have grinds in order to be successful or fun. I would go so far as to say that the game probably really isn't even fun for you as much as the idea of having more or being better equipped than the average of other players is fun for you.

It does say that the core experience of the game is lacking if you think that the game has to have a grind otherwise people would not play it. I don't play CS:GO because there's a grind, there actually is no grind, I play it because it provides a fun experience. I would play MW:O for the same reason, if the experience was fun.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

your answer says volume's about the fun or the actual experience of the game. Grind's are created because the core of a game is very boring without them. They are an easy way of providing both an experience of progressing and at the same time creating something to work towards, which plays on the human perception of purpose.

What you are saying is confirming that because, without something to grind for, you become disinterested in the game. That doesn't mean the game HAS to have grinds in order to be successful or fun. I would go so far as to say that the game probably really isn't even fun for you as much as the idea of having more or being better equipped than the average of other players is fun for you.

It does say that the core experience of the game is lacking if you think that the game has to have a grind otherwise people would not play it. I don't play CS:GO because there's a grind, there actually is no grind, I play it because it provides a fun experience. I would play MW:O for the same reason, if the experience was fun.

Iam not a competetive player, so I do not enjoy CS:Go true and you are right about what you said. Without anything to work for, I have little interest in playing.

MWO is fun as long as I have something to work for. If not well its not fun to me.

Now the interesting question is this: what sort of game is MWO supposed to be? An answer neither you nor I can answer, right?

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

Iam not a competetive player, so I do not enjoy CS:Go true and you are right about what you said. Without anything to work for, I have little interest in playing.

MWO is fun as long as I have something to work for. If not well its not fun to me.

Now the interesting question is this: what sort of game is MWO supposed to be? An answer neither you nor I can answer, right?

Some people play the game for the experience, some people play it just to fill the need to acquire things. One thing though I think we can both agree on though is that most everyone plays a game because it is fun. If it's not fun, people don't play it for very long, or in the case of a F2P game, spend very much on it.

The problem with trying to classify MW:O is because the dev's still change things and change idea's on a regular basis like the whole 3rd person thing. They themselves can't hold true to their own plan, and at the same time I wonder if there was ever a real plan to begin with.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Some people play the game for the experience, some people play it just to fill the need to acquire things. One thing though I think we can both agree on though is that most everyone plays a game because it is fun. If it's not fun, people don't play it for very long, or in the case of a F2P game, spend very much on it.

The problem with trying to classify MW:O is because the dev's still change things and change idea's on a regular basis like the whole 3rd person thing. They themselves can't hold true to their own plan, and at the same time I wonder if there was ever a real plan to begin with.

You are right, that is something we can agree on.

One more thing:

I might be wrong but here it goes:

So you are looking at balancing MWO in a Counter Striker kinda fashion right? In CS every weapon is viable no matter whats it is used against. Skill determines if you win or not + situation you are in.

Hence every Mech would be viable against any other Mech, High-Tech or not, correct?

Edited by Alexa Steel, 20 November 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

You are right, that is something we can agree on.

One more thing:

I might be wrong but here it goes:

So you are looking at balancing MWO in a Counter Striker kinda fashion right? In CS every weapon is viable no matter whats it is used against. Skill determines if you win or not + situation you are in.

Hence every Mech would be viable against any other Mech, High-Tech or not, correct?

To a degree, yes. Also this was how the game was marketed early in closed beta, and through lack of developer communication It may or may not have changed internally as far as their intended goal or purpose for MW:O. Mostly though they didn't want any type of mech to be abnormally overpowered or outside the scope of balance, as well as the weapons and the tech.

I mean if they didn't care that tech could make things overpowered, why the nerf to DHS? Why nerf Artemis if the intended goal was to make higher tier tech that much more powerful? Why not just buff AMS to counter or wait for ECM?

They are trying to balance but they are doing a lackluster job and they are dragging their feet and going about it from all the wrong angles.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 20 November 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

To a degree, yes. Also this was how the game was marketed early in closed beta, and through lack of developer communication It may or may not have changed internally as far as their intended goal or purpose for MW:O. Mostly though they didn't want any type of mech to be abnormally overpowered or outside the scope of balance, as well as the weapons and the tech.

I mean if they didn't care that tech could make things overpowered, why the nerf to DHS? Why nerf Artemis if the intended goal was to make higher tier tech that much more powerful? Why not just buff AMS to counter or wait for ECM?

They are trying to balance but they are doing a lackluster job and they are dragging their feet and going about it from all the wrong angles.

Hm never got that impression when they marketed it to me. But hey you have your point of view about that.

Sure there needs to be some sort of balance, but unless we know about their intended goal and the actual values, we could keep this argument alive forever, without ever coming close to how it might actually be.

So in others words, I understand your point of view and appearently you understand mine. So lets call it a "draw"?

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Hm never got that impression when they marketed it to me. But hey you have your point of view about that.

Sure there needs to be some sort of balance, but unless we know about their intended goal and the actual values, we could keep this argument alive forever, without ever coming close to how it might actually be.

So in others words, I understand your point of view and appearently you understand mine. So lets call it a "draw"?

Sure.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alexa Steel, on 20 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

See thats what I would find boring.



Still from a gameplay perspective I would find that to be very boring and not skillfull at all.

But I understand where you are coming from.

The issue is what do the players want? I would like to see heat sinks work a bit more like TT does but that would require speeding them up to vent after one weapons salvo. So using the Panther again. If I fire the PPC SRM4 and JUMP 120 M. My sinks would leave me at 10+3+4=17 Heat 17-14=3 total heat. Do this 4-6 times and my heat will become a problem.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 November 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Alexa Steel]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 November 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

The issue is what do the players want? I would like to see heat sinks work a bit more like TT does but that would require speeding them up to vent after one weapons salvo. So using the Panther again. If I fire the PPC SRM4 and JUMP 120 M. My sinks would leave me at 10+3+4=17 Heat 17-14=3 total heat. Do this 4-6 times and my heat will become a problem.

Yes that is indeed the issue and I cant tell you what they want. If you read my posts with Windies you can see my stance on this aswell as an actual model for an F2P game. Of course I could be wrong and people like you are the majority, in wich case it would be better to change the DHS values accordingly.

If however people like me are the majority, heat would be fine.

[iller]

Higher Tech isn't automatically better tech. Been at this franchise since '97, and I remember so many times running out of space before running out of tonnage when trying to get too fancy with clan tech, and then paying for it instantly as soon as an I-A-E happens b/c I had no space for any CASE. (It's also why Lost tech is a lot more interesting some times). You can't make heat dispersal completely linear otherwise the Spreadsheet nerds always win before the match even starts and since this isn't WOW... Piloting skill needs to be a factor too. As does the damage type. Even if you manage to allocate extra FF, Endosteel, S+XL, DHS, and any other gimmick just to pack on an extra ERLLas while staying above 75Km, you still have to deal with the reality that eventually someone with Standard or Reactive armor is still going to be better at "Mech Bumper Cars" than you b/c his stats are based in reality and yours are based on a Gameboard that was intended to be played without a slide rule.

If they wanted to be super realitic for TT cred, they could have added a Heat-Damage Diespersion chart that penalized DHS users more than "empty slot" mechs when being hit indiscrimnately with Flamers/Pulse spam. And wouldn't that be a lot more skilled and strategic?... having to theorize what points to focus your energy weaps on in order to Heat-Crit a SHS mech when you're probably forced yourself to run DHS's just to run that many heat weapons? Now that would set precedent for an even bigger aiming/luck Disparity (unless you could see hints of their SHS placement in Infrared). But they're not doing that here... they're (apparently?) just building a system of diminshing returns into the future of UpTier'ing which is frankly REQUIRED if the game wants to keep bringing in new F2P players 6 months from now.

If you don't agree, I can point to a couple of other F2P's lately that have completely failed at that level of accessibility (or who have to keep playing in Beginner Rank servers because the experience Disparity between Beginners and Veteran jumps so drastically that it's impossible for them to play on the Vet-dominated PUBS).

Edited by iller, 20 November 2012 - 01:06 PM.

[wanderer]

Zakhodit, on 20 November 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

The only way to get my HBK-4G to be a force on the battlefield was to strip off the AC/20. Load on two Large Pulse Lasers, plus one medium. With all that extra weight I stuffed in a 255 engine and now I stomp around at 88.8 KMH and slice arms off with ease.

The Devs have made Gauss Rifles and Auto Cannons a joke. They don't work right, and there is no incentive to use them.

Jump jets? I can put one jump jet in the left leg of my Jenner and jump like it had 4, and not go spinning off into space like a 4th of July firework.

Gauss rifles a joke? REALLY? When the most frequently howled about 'Mech is the K2 "Gausscat"?

Also, half right on jump jets. There's nothing in the construction rules that requires you to have them mounted in a balanced manner in TT, although virtually all canonical designs do. Legally, you CAN mount one jet in a leg and get a 30m jump capacity out of it, with no JJ required in the other. The lack of more/less JJ's making a difference in MWO, OTOH is a noted "devs understand it's f-ed up right now, will fix" since closed beta, something other stuff like engines having too few/too many HS was filed under for quite some time as well.

[Farmer]

wanderer, on 20 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

The lack of more/less JJ's making a difference in MWO, OTOH is a noted "devs understand it's f-ed up right now, will fix" since closed beta, something other stuff like engines having too few/too many HS was filed under for quite some time as well.

I'm willing to bet this one change will completely change how people use Jenners. It's a huge bug that's being abused heavily at the moment.