58 replies to this topic

[Nikoliy]

TheMagician, on 25 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

@Nikoliy There may well be (as in definitely is) some remaining animation or model issues with the Cataphract such as some moonwalking but the point expressed was that overall this was a far smoother introduction of a new mech than just about any other since the original four.  Give credit where credit is due PGI has done better with this mech and both the model and the animations are pretty well polished - I have seen far worse in released AAA titles (see just about any Bethesda game ever).  As for the Dragon over the Cataphract - well that's a choice for WSB and their playstyle but I think the point CutterWolf was making was that in a competitive match the CTF is just doesn't excel in any field particularly well and for that reason he would take the reliability of a Dragon instead.  Currently SJR takes neither Cataphracts nor Dragons as competitive team mechs.  It is worth noting that you may play a CTF in a PuG match far better than you play a DRG; in fact there are a load of customised mech options that play really well in a PuG environment which are totally useless in competitive play (it's one of the most common issues we have when accepting former solo players into teams) so I would ask you to bear that in mind.  To dismiss WSB's use or none use of certain mechs is wrong as you are not aware at all of how their team tactics play out which is very different from the PuG game you currently play.

Ill try to ignore the part were you dismiss me as a PUG noob and try to talk about why the comments made are just .... bad


Cataphract


"Its a prety week mech in terms of armor... it doesn't have the longevity of the K2"
The Magician


"The side torso cant take the amount of damage that a Gaussapult can take, I don't know if it was a design error on their part... designing of this mech or not but it does not have the amount of armor it should have in the side torso being a 70 ton mech. So it does make it week."


The non anonymous WS guy... Warlock I think


This is just obvious lack of understanding of the Battletech Mech system. Now I'm 95% sure you guys know that a 70 ton mech has more armor in all parts (except the head) then any lighter mech. So if you are trying to present a semi expert view point the try to make it clear that what you are complaining about is the "hit box size".


I don't want to transcribe the other parts so I'm just going to try to get the gist of my problem with the statements
While talking about the Cataphract you commentators say that its good for long range and for brawling in the same comment. None of them seam to have enough experience fighting in or against a Cataphract to point out the advantages. Such as being able to block shots from your side with your arms when compared with the Dragon and the Catapult. Both of these mechs center torso is exposed not only from the front but from anywhere in the forward hemisphere even from a little further then that. In fact on the Dragon you can hit the head from behind and above. Next if you are talking about your "competitive play style" then I think you should provide some more description of the difference between this "competitive play style" and the rest of us...


The Animation


I am personally very happy with the animations so far in the game. They are not perfect but you can definatly see that they are working on it. So my gripe was not with PGI but with your (podcast) presentation of it. Again it seams like your commentators lacked experience with the mech to comment on this.


It seams to me that you as the host of the podcast should try to catch this type of errors or misstatements. I know its not easy to do it live but you should as part of writing the questions for the show try to anticipate the comments made and see if their are additional questions or comments you can make to make sure their technical knowledge of Battletech and their experience with the current issue are up to par. Because honestly I had a hard time listening and taking the podcast seriously past the first 10-15 min



Nikoliy

[Runz]

Hi Nikoliy,

Thanks for taking the time to respond ^^

My apologies if you thought I was dismissing you as a PuG noob that was not my intention and I am sorry if you thought it came across that way, my point was to explain that certain teams may have a reason for taking a certain mech build or type which plays into its overall strategy, something that is not always apparent to the viewer when made as part of a broader statement.

I certainly agree I should have caught some of the factual errors on statements regarding armour values and I think that was my fault for being a tad too willing to 'understand the point the panelist is driving at' rather than making additional comment. It's that walking the fine tightrope between not putting guests on the defensive so that they remain engaged so they contribute their points of view and interrupting them to define what they mean specifically to prevent people necessarily talking about armour values when what they actually mean is hitboxes or the idea that although the CTF has the necessary armour value, it still feels weak or vulnerable when playing it. It's a perception experienced by many other players not just the WSB guys regardless of what the actual armour values state (again the issue to me seems like hitboxes, mainly the broadness of the mech when compared to the K2 which when fighting between teams can be a serious problem - exposed side torsos determine whether it is worth the risk of placing XLs in for example - ensure all your heavier mechs have XLs to aid unit cohesion is a fairly big deal in team matches as stragglers are usually caught at the back and picked off).

Again a lot of the discussion was based around the 2X and 4X variants and their ability to replace the K2 and the general consensus of most team players seems to be that the K2 remains a more reliable sniper mech. And even though the the K2 is a sniper mech generally, it can be used to brawl if appropriately supported by the rest of the team and you aim off appropriately for the fast movement of brawls, it isn't limited to one role or the other if used properly. Finally I would say that although lots of people do high damage in the CTF but high damage isn't necessarily the sign of a fantastic mech build - consistent shots on the CT will kill a mech faster even though your damage done at the end will be lower. Generally arm mounted weapons are more difficult to get those consistent CT shots off.

I am also fairly certain that despite being 5 tons heavier than the K2, they have the same armour value in the side torso within MWO - but please don't quote me on that as I haven't had the time to log on and double check it today.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment, believe it or not we genuinely do appreciate all the feedback we get especially when it's constructive ^^

Runz

[TheMagician]

As I stated, the Cataphract is the first genuine good ballistic brawling mech that we have. However, to be competitively viable, I think that the hit boxes need to be adjusted, as currently the CT is too big and it dies very fast. I was testing this again last night, and I could easily hit the CT from angles that I would not be able to against mechs such as the Catapult. I also mentioned that it feels like the CTF dies faster once you get to internals. But I said that I don't know if this is a bug, or if it just feels that way. It might just feel that way because dmg doesn't spread to other sections as much as when facing certain other mechs.

However, we have not done scrims with the CTF yet due to the matchmaking system, so its partly-theory crafting. We won't know how good or not good it is competitively until we can test it more thoroughly in scrims and league play.

Understand that the people discussing their opinions do not necessarily agree with each other. They disagreed with me about it being a good brawler. Whereas, I think it will be once they fix the hitboxes, similar to how they improved the Dragon's hitboxes. We also had different thoughts on how effective it is as a sniper compared to the K2 gausspult.

[TheMagician]

As for competitive play, check out these matches, and see how different it can be from general play.

Edited by TheMagician, 26 November 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[Fastidious]

My impression of this episode was lots of complaints over and over ad nauseum it was so bad by the 1 hour mark I turned it off (first RHOD I didn't listen to in full). It just felt like repetition, the same thing said slightly different.

I do have some questions and I hope I can finally settle these. On a few episodes, this one included, I've heard various numbers for the amount of developers and money spent on MWO. I've heard 45 developers and 10 million spent. Where are these figures coming from?

Edited by Fastidious, 26 November 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[TheMagician]

The numbers were mentioned during an interview with NGNG. Though I heard 8 million today, so now I'm not so sure.

We are going to focus more on the competitive scene going forward, so there will be less of us picking apart the problems of the game, though of course, we will still discuss changes to the game that are made, and how they affect game play.

I think the amount of criticism in the last episode, is due to the frustration of playing in 4-person groups and not as a full team as we all had been for a while.

[Kalthios]

In the eighth minute one of them talks about one of the disadvantages of the cataphract to the gaussapult: when both are in cover, the cataphract has to expose herself more fully to be able to shoot her arm mounted guns.

This problem needs to be addressed. Battlemechs can raise their arms and hold them in the same way as humans. We need a raise and lower arm function for each arm. From "|_" to "-----". This would allow mechs such as the Cataphract, Atlas, Dragon, Centurion, and Hunchback to more effectively use cover. We need our robots to have more controls.

[Acehilator]

TheMagician, on 26 November 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

As for competitive play, check out these matches, and see how different it can be from general play.

Wow... those were horrible. Even less flanking maneuvers than on an average PUG match. Teams managing to stay together and focus fire using VoiceCom. Competitive? You've got to be kidding me.

[TheMagician]

Well, when you get a team together, let me know. It's hard to see all that went on from one perspective.

Edited by TheMagician, 26 November 2012 - 12:44 PM.

[Runz]

Acehilator, on 26 November 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Wow... those were horrible. Even less flanking maneuvers than on an average PUG match. Teams managing to stay together and focus fire using VoiceCom. Competitive? You've got to be kidding me.

Flanking maneuvers will usually get you killed in most competitive matches, they take a lot of co-ordination and if poorly done or if the enemy team scouts properly they will pick apart each lance individually. A lot of the competitive play is about learn to focus your fire as a team so that you're dropping mechs as fast as possible. Rightly or wrongly that is how the game is played at competitive levels as doing anything else such as flanking moves usually equals suicide.

[Acehilator]

Runz, on 26 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

...they take a lot of co-ordination ...

I thought that would be a major element of competitive play? Guess I was wrong.

[Glory in the Highest]

Acehilator, on 26 November 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

I thought that would be a major element of competitive play? Guess I was wrong.

Those who don't participate in the competitive scene often are wrong about the competitive scene.

[Runz]

Fastidious, on 26 November 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

My impression of this episode was lots of complaints over and over ad nauseum it was so bad by the 1 hour mark I turned it off (first RHOD I didn't listen to in full). It just felt like repetition, the same thing said slightly different. I do have some questions and I hope I can finally settle these. On a few episodes, this one included, I've heard various numbers for the amount of developers and money spent on MWO. I've heard 45 developers and 10 million spent. Where are these figures coming from?

Hey Fastidious ^^

Reference the complaints mentioned ad nauseum, I understand where you're coming front - people do like to air their views on certain issues and it can at times seem like we're treading over the same ground. As I said earlier as well, it may seem like we're bashing PGI a lot but this is where we have passionate gamers who want to see the game succeed who really want to get their view across. As the Magician has said it's one of the things we hope to redress in upcoming episodes particularly when we can start introducing leagure news after the matchmaking phase 2 comes in.

[Nikoliy]

I think you guys still don't get it. I'm not asking you to explain any of your podcast to me. I'm telling you that that should have been in the podcast. You are trying to start a popular podcast you need to think about what audience you want to reach. If its just the 100 (more or less) people that are playing in your tournament then you are doing fine ( however I think they already know this stuff). If on the other hand you are trying get more audience then the discussion needs to be more comprehensive.
So I'm not sure how else to explain this to you guys, please understand that I'm criticizing your podcast. Again don't post me your scoreboards, KDRs or vids. Use them in the podcast. All the post that have been made here to rebut or explain the comments made in the podcast should be in the podcast...

Nikoliy

(You were right Runz, I stand corrected, that a 70 ton mech has the same armor points in the side torsos as a 65 ton mech but that is not the point. Thanks for remaining civil on this thread btw)

[Kaldor]

Runz, on 26 November 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Flanking maneuvers will usually get you killed in most competitive matches, they take a lot of co-ordination and if poorly done or if the enemy team scouts properly they will pick apart each lance individually. A lot of the competitive play is about learn to focus your fire as a team so that you're dropping mechs as fast as possible. Rightly or wrongly that is how the game is played at competitive levels as doing anything else such as flanking moves usually equals suicide.

The other issue is that the maps simply are not big enough to allow for true flanking and hammer/anvil tactics. When bigger maps with decent cover come into play, camping strategies will fall to the wayside as they will find themselves outflanked and being shot at from multiple angles

[Acehilator]

Glory, on 26 November 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Those who don't participate in the competitive scene often are wrong about the competitive scene.

When you are defending crap like in that videos you should stop using the C word. "Team fight with VoiceComs" would be about 98,7% more appropriate.

[Glory in the Highest]

I have to admit that I find the common obsession with the "flanking maneuver" as the pinnacle of tactical warfare to be pretty ridiculous.

The truth is, when I see people talking about tactics and use terms like "flank them" I tend to tune them out...

[Broceratops]

Kaldor, on 26 November 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

The other issue is that the maps simply are not big enough to allow for true flanking and hammer/anvil tactics. When bigger maps with decent cover come into play, camping strategies will fall to the wayside as they will find themselves outflanked and being shot at from multiple angles

I think this is a big part of it. If we had a huge huge map to the point where it would take an Atlas 5+ minutes to walk from end to end, then things like scouting and macro-positioning become a big deal. Right now, you know that you'll meet at the dropship or the cave, so it makes a lot of sense to set up on your side of the dropship or your side of the cave and wait.

If on the other hand you have a huge BF3 sized map, then you really cant just move all your dudes around in one big clump.

[Runz]

Nikoliy, on 26 November 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I think you guys still don't get it. I'm not asking you to explain any of your podcast to me. I'm telling you that that should have been in the podcast. You are trying to start a popular podcast you need to think about what audience you want to reach. If its just the 100 (more or less) people that are playing in your tournament then you are doing fine ( however I think they already know this stuff). If on the other hand you are trying get more audience then the discussion needs to be more comprehensive.
So I'm not sure how else to explain this to you guys, please understand that I'm criticizing your podcast. Again don't post me your scoreboards, KDRs or vids. Use them in the podcast. All the post that have been made here to rebut or explain the comments made in the podcast should be in the podcast...

Nikoliy

(You were right Runz, I stand corrected, that a 70 ton mech has the same armor points in the side torsos as a 65 ton mech but that is not the point. Thanks for remaining civil on this thread btw)

hehe it's my job to be the charming and affable host even on the thread lol.

You are of course right, a lot of the points mentioned or explained in the thread should have been in the podcast to better help and explain the discussions for people watching and I will take responsibility for that - as I said earlier as the host I should have probably have kept better track of that and ensure I acted as a bridge between the panelists and the viewer.

Seriously we do appreciate the feedback as it helps us create the show you guys want to see and the show we want to produce so please do keep the critical points coming cos this is all a learning process for us and we take what you guys suggest to hopefully improve our content XD

[TruePoindexter]

First off - fix your audio. Seriously a good microphone is like $50. Anyone participating in a podcast should invest in one. Audio is more important than video and crackling audio is like stabbing my ears with nails.

Moving on though did anyone change the armor on their Cataphract? I know I have and mine are very durable. The comments on weak side torsos are just strange. The side torso hit box is LARGER than the Catapult's but it definitely can mount more armor. Some of the stock configs have lower armor values but just like other machines you can adjust it. Just odd to hear comments about its sides being weak when they're quite strong. The issue is that they're easier to hit. I know that I have seen a resurgence of LRM's since the launch of the Cataphract which is not a coincidence.

I also find it interesting that everyone pre-Cataphract was convinced the 4X was going to be the big deal with its 4 arm mounted ballistics points when in reality I would argue the 1X and 3D have had more of an impact.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 26 November 2012 - 02:26 PM.