576 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

You made your intentions clear in your very post in this thread which was to get me banned.




I rest my case on why you've been posting in this thread instead of replying to what I've posted originally.

Now you're jsut being silly. First off that's taken completely out of context. Second of all this was your THIRD post on the exact same subject that had been deleted TWICE by mods since you want to attempt to make that into something it's not.
Again stop taking things out of context sir

[James The Fox Dixon]

Sandpit, on 08 November 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Now you're jsut being silly. First off that's taken completely out of context. Second of all this was your THIRD post on the exact same subject that had been deleted TWICE by mods since you want to attempt to make that into something it's not.
Again stop taking things out of context sir

You made it clear in the previous threads that you wanted me banned. That's your M.O.. Take your own advice before you dispense it to me. You have taken everything I've said out of context and continue to do so.

[Weiland]

Sandpit, on 08 November 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Now you're jsut being silly. First off that's taken completely out of context. Second of all this was your THIRD post on the exact same subject that had been deleted TWICE by mods since you want to attempt to make that into something it's not.
Again stop taking things out of context sir

Those were actually deleted locked for CoC breaches. Not because of the subject, brainiac.

Edited by Weiland, 08 November 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[Phelan Ward-Kell]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

We have repeatedly stated it comes from Dev Blog 3. It states that players will be able to play how they want to play and be rewarded for performing their role.

http://mwomercs.com/...3-role-warfare/

**See below**

InnerSphereNews, on 01 February 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

src="//static.mwomercs.com/img/news/dev_blog3_01.png" width=320> It all begins in the game’s cycle of playing matches. The player first starts off by selecting <STRONG>contracts</STRONG> or entering <STRONG>quick matches</STRONG> and playing the game in general.</DIV>

Certainly this doesn't exclusively state what I'm about to say, but the basic logic is in place to come to this conclusion.

What I take from this: You can take a contract and increase the money you earn from a "mission" or you can quick match and forego the potential bonus of doing work for someone.
With the current state of the economy, an LRM boat would logically be part of a unit and therefore be involved in contracts and such. This means they would be getting the bonus.

No lone wolf in their right mind would go cruising around a battlefield in an LRM boat, especially without support weapons.
This all accumulates to A) The economy is closely representing what it will when meta game launches; Perks of meta game will be necessary to run certain mech classes.


I might be pulling at straws a bit here, but it's a short distance to reach these conclusions. All of which I understand are subjective.

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

How many missiles are there in a single ton of SSRM ammo? It's way less than 2000 you pulled out your butt. The rest of your argument is flawed since it is based upon an imaginary number that you pulled out of your rear area.

To get the number of tons specified of ammo is the following:
LRM: 12 tons aka 20% of the mech's total weight for a Catapult.
SRM&SSRM: 20 tons aka 30% of the mech's total weight for a Catapult.

You have failed to account for the rest of mech's build like engine, hs, structure, armor, weapons, and equipment. Thus you have strawmanned.

You apparently missed what not replying to you meant.

My post has nothing to do with SSRM ammo specifically. It have everything to do with ammo in general.
It was not a direct response to you, but a general statement of thought.

I said LRM ammo, some LRM boat builds will use that much ammo. It is not even the ceiling for LRM ammo.
The example uses LRMs because they make for nice clear numbers, and more people use them than streaks.
The post had nothing to do with repair costs, only ammo costs.


Here is the post again for reference.

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Another train of thought.
Do you need 2000 missiles to win a match?
Should you be prevented from carrying 2000 missiles if you specs allow it?
If you want to allow players to carry 2000 missiles, while encouraging them to only bring what they need, would you:
A)Abandon player choice, and artificially restrict people to a lower number.
B)Make missile cost inconsiquential
C)Price out missile so that players can bring enough missile to do the job an make money, or bring more than needed an lose money
D)other(explain)

Remember, in real TT games, people didn't just LRM the everything to death due to the cost of replacing the missiles, and the vulnerability to fast attack mechs. (ECM/Cover/LAMS etc also come into play of course, but that's part of the attack mech vulnerability.)

With mechs being more durable in MWO, one light/fast medium won't instantly ruin a LRM boats day. So As I see it, they can either limit ammo slots, or keep the ammo expensive. Or make LRMS useless and cheap.
Personally, I like the idea of player choice, with drawbacks to overuse.

[James The Fox Dixon]

The Phigment, on 08 November 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

**See below**



Certainly this doesn't exclusively state what I'm about to say, but the basic logic is in place to come to this conclusion.

What I take from this: You can take a contract and increase the money you earn from a "mission" or you can quick match and forego the potential bonus of doing work for someone.
With the current state of the economy, an LRM boat would logically be part of a unit and therefore be involved in contracts and such. This means they would be getting the bonus.

No lone wolf in their right mind would go cruising around a battlefield in an LRM boat, especially without support weapons.
This all accumulates to A) The economy is closely representing what it will when meta game launches; Perks of meta game will be necessary to run certain mech classes.


I might be pulling at straws a bit here, but it's a short distance to reach these conclusions. All of which I understand are subjective.

I noticed that you have ignored the source I quoted. Try to dispute that first then move onto the ISN feed.

[Sandpit]

Weiland, on 08 November 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Those were actually deleted locked for CoC breaches. Not because of the subject, brainiac.

uhm yes i know this but thank you for the name calling

[Phelan Ward-Kell]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

I noticed that you have ignored the source I quoted. Try to dispute that first then move onto the ISN feed.

*sigh* I pulled this directly from your source. Which WAS the ISN feed.

You're deflecting James. Stop trying to dodge valid points.

Edited by The Phigment, 08 November 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

You apparently missed what not replying to you meant.

My post has nothing to do with SSRM ammo specifically. It have everything to do with ammo in general.
It was not a direct response to you, but a general statement of thought.

I said LRM ammo, some LRM boat builds will use that much ammo. It is not even the ceiling for LRM ammo.
The example uses LRMs because they make for nice clear numbers, and more people use them than streaks.
The post had nothing to do with repair costs, only ammo costs.


Here is the post again for reference.

Actually, in regular TT games ammo costs are not accounted for except in the case of a campaign. A standard pick up game is decide upon the forces for the battle then they play. It's a one shot game where ammo costs are not important. A campaign on the other hand does track it because it is important. Campaigns are rarely done if you do not have a regular play group. Check and mate.

[socialSavant]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

The original post has the numbers for everything. Start there and work forward. Also, strawman is a logical fallacy in debate. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Compliments of Wikipedia

I have won tournaments in Cross-Examination Debate and Extemporaneous Speech as relegated by the National Forensics League. I know full well what you were trying to say, but still haven't read responses from you which show any qualitative evidence to support your original claim. I have not put up a "strawman," or as we would say in the NFL, "lost topicality." You have not stayed topical and I can only assume at this point it is because you know full well that you cannot support the topic.

Thank you again, Wikipedia...

[LogicSol]

Dijasom, on 08 November 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

That is not what PGI stated. PGI stated CLEARLY and it has been in many of my posts that you could play ANY MECH ANY BUILD WITH ZERO PENALTIES.

You are simply trolling and ignoring my posts.


Technology Rating
The Technology Rating (TR) is the percentage of a force’s
BattleMech, vehicle and fighter tonnage constructed with
advanced technology (Inner Sphere or Clan Level 2 equipment).
A unit is considered to be Level 2 or higher if its equipment
includes anything not shown on the Level 1 Equipment Table
below, or if it incorporates Clan technology.
To calculate a force’s TR, determine the percentage of the
force’s total number of combat units (excluding conventional
infantry) that use Level 2 technology or Clan-made equipment.
Allot 5 points for every 10 percent
above 30 that the unit possesses in
Inner Sphere Level 2 technology.
Units that use Clan technology are
worth double their percentage, so
double the percentage calculation
result when resolving Clan unit percentages, and add the result to the
number of Level 2+ units to find the
force’s overall Technology Rating.
Whether units employ Clan or Inner
Sphere Level 2 technology, however,
the maximum technology percentage
cannot exceed 100.
Though not all mercenary forces
have Dragoons Ratings, they do
have Equipment Ratings, which sum
up the level of technology in a similar
fashion to the TR formula. To find a
force’s Equipment Rating, simply
cross-reference the total percentage
of Level 2/Clan units within the force
against the Equipment Rating Table
below. While not critical to computing
Dragoons Ratings, knowing a force’s average Equipment Rating
can help unrated forces obtain contracts.

Once again, this was stated as being adhered to by PGI itself. it is not.

A few things.
Needing to run another mech to support your expensive one is not a penalty.
You can also run your mech regardless of how much CB you have by not repairing it. It is repair to a usable state for free.
If you want to run it at 100%, you need to play the game and maintaining a positive CB balance is part of that.

They also never said they would follow TT to the letter, they said they would try to get as much of the feel as possible, but gameplay will always trump it.

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

We have repeatedly stated it comes from Dev Blog 3. It states that players will be able to play how they want to play and be rewarded for performing their role.

http://mwomercs.com/...3-role-warfare/

This doesn't mean you will always make money.
You are rewarded for your role via kill, assist, spot and damage XP +CB bonuses. It's up to you to make your mech profitable.

Edited by LogicSol, 08 November 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

The Phigment, on 08 November 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

*sigh* I pulled this directly from your source. Which WAS the ISN feed.

Your deflecting James. Stop trying to dodge valid points.

The ISN feed does not talk about Dev Blog 3, so it is you that is attempting to strawman to deflect away from what the developers have said in Dev Blog 3. Try again.

socialSavant, on 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

I have won tournaments in Cross-Examination Debate and Extemporaneous Speech as relegated by the National Forensics League. I know full well what you were trying to say, but still haven't read responses from you which show any qualitative evidence to support your original claim. I have not put up a "strawman," or as we would say in the NFL, "lost topicality." You have not stayed topical and I can only assume at this point it is because you know full well that you cannot support the topic.

Thank you again, Wikipedia...

You haven't defeated the original numbers, so yes you are strawman.

[LogicSol]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Actually, in regular TT games ammo costs are not accounted for except in the case of a campaign. A standard pick up game is decide upon the forces for the battle then they play. It's a one shot game where ammo costs are not important. A campaign on the other hand does track it because it is important. Campaigns are rarely done if you do not have a regular play group. Check and mate.

A oneshot battle doesn't track repair costs either.

Checkmate denied, invalid move.

[James The Fox Dixon]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

A few things.
Needing to run another mech to support your expensive one is not a penalty.
You can also run your mech regardless of how much CB you have by not repairing it. It is repair to a usable state for free.
If you want to run it at 100%, you need to play the game and maintaining a positive CB balance is part of that.

They also never said they would follow TT to the letter, they said they would try to get as much of the feel as possible, but gameplay will always trump it.

This doesn't mean you will always make money.
You are rewarded for your role via kill, assist, spot and damage XP +CB bonuses. It's up to you to make your mech profitable.

Developer Blog 3 does not state this. It says that we are to run anything we want to run without penalty. Try again.

Developer blog 3 states the contrary to what you've said about it. You are not the developer therefore your opinion does not matter.

Your opinion again runs contrary to what the developers have said. Your opinion does not matter since you are not a developer.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

Simply dont use expensive weapons like gauss, ac20, LL and lrm20 and you will make profit.

Edited by ngl, 08 November 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

LogicSol, on 08 November 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

A oneshot battle doesn't track repair costs either.

Checkmate denied, invalid move.

No it does not, but you never said anything about repairs. You stated ammo only to which I replied to. Check and mate. Invalid move on your part.

[socialSavant]

Thank you James for replying so quickly and efficiently to my request on research material.

InnerSphereNews, on 01 February 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Players are now truly allowed to customize their gameplay experience to suit their play style which in itself is fairly new to on-line FPS/RPG titles.

This is the closest statement in that entire thread, which I could find, to the claim that PGI has made it clear that EVERY MECH/EVERY BUILD/NO PENALTIES.

Is there any other evidence that you can proffer?

[Phelan Ward-Kell]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

The ISN feed does not talk about Dev Blog 3, so it is you that is attempting to strawman to deflect away from what the developers have said in Dev Blog 3. Try again.



You haven't defeated the original numbers, so yes you are strawman.

In bright blue at the top of the source YOU provided is
"
Dev Blog 3 - Role Warfare


"

If you wanted me to quote something different, you should provide a different source. Just sayin'

Edited by The Phigment, 08 November 2012 - 04:51 PM.

[LogicSol]

BTW, from your source Dixon.

Quote

Scouting – Gathering information as a reconnaissance/stealth unit that gets relayed back to the rest of the friendly force.
Defense – The defender holds the ground gained by the offensive forces and protects those in need.
Assault – The assault role is for the tactical forward units whose primary role is to seek and destroy.
Command – The command role is split into two different levels, lance and company. Lance command falls to those in charge of up to 3 other players and assist in coordinated attacks on key targets. The company commander utilizes the 2 other lance commanders and all information being relayed back to him to make global calls on the battlefield.

Mech classes are not roles. One mech class shares the name with a role, but that role can be played by any class.
Really expensive missile mech is also not a role.
It's up to you to build a mech that is profitable in it's role.

[socialSavant]

James The Fox Dixon, on 08 November 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

You haven't defeated the original numbers, so yes you are strawman.

First of all, I don't need to. Others have done this already. Many numbers about Cost/Benefit ratios have been passed back and forth.

Secondly, the numbers you provided and that I did indeed read fully, argue nothing about the actual experience of the "new free player." To quote your OP. You have yet to provide any proof of your original assertion as stated in your post and title:

Quote

As it is shown that the current economic is unsustainable for free players since they will leave out of frustration due to the lack of progress.