69 replies to this topic

[Rhent]

stjobe, on 16 December 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

What difference does ECM make to that scenario? The HUD flashes on top when taking damage from the front, and on the bottom when taking damage from the rear; ECM does not alter that in any way.

If he's out of the ECM bubble, he'll typically get a red arrow to his back because he has other members of his team within sensor distance.

I've played WoW Rogue and SWTOR Scoundrels fairly extensively for PVP purposes, and with how ECM was implemented, it damn well feels like stealth now, and my SRM Cat has one hell of a back stab or shotgun blast now.

At the very least if he has someone pointblank at his back, a red arrow should show up on the map to give him some chance in the ECM bubble.

Tickdoff Tank, on 16 December 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

You should get a refund. You seem highly dissatisfied with the game, I doubt that a couple months will make enough of a difference.



They are making a LOT of long time MW fans happy. And they are making some unhappy. Did you expect anything else?

I still got MC to burn. Might as well wait for release to see how they do. There is a chance they will actually figure out what balance and counters actually mean in a game.

If not, then I can continue to enjoy Hawken. At least there, they aren't tied to Table Top rules and are able to actually make balances that can work in the long run for the maps they have. MWO feels like some kind of bastardization of the rules that isn't working. Hell if Whacky Paul could get a real test server going where 100+ people could actually test these implementations first a lot of the hell Paul is putting his player base through on his Whacky ideas would be fixed in the first place.

[PANZERBUNNY]

It's the table top rules which give us the game.

Stop wanking on the mechanics which have made it possible to even HAVE this game as it is, this soon without them needing another year to even have it playable.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 16 December 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[Rhent]

PANZERBUNNY, on 16 December 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

It's the table top rules which give us the game.

Stop wanking on the mechanics which have made it possible to even HAVE this game as it is, this soon without them needing another year to even have it playable.

Either stick to the rules or don't stick to the rules. Right now when it suits the designers they use the rules as an excuse, when it doesn't suit them they state they are doing whats best for the game.

How about the designers put in balance and counterbalance and TT rules be damned?

[xRaeder]

Either PGI are poor developers (which I think they are based on the type of game they decided to make), have funneled most of the Founder's program to other projects (seeming more and more likely that it isn't being used in the development of this game), or Mechwarrior in of itself isn't F2P design friendly.

I doubt the third option is an issue seeing as I have been able to post better designs than PGI has, so I think it is a combination of 1 and 2. Incompetent developers, and funneling money to other projects. For $5 million a lot more has been done in terms of making a good game.

The most important question of all is this. And this goes is posed directly to all the MW fans out there.

Would you be playing this game if it wasn't Mechwarrior?

If the answer is no... start telling PGI how ****** they are and how to really improve the game. I've been saying it for months. Join the naysayers.

[Zero Neutral]

Peek, on 16 December 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

... and I was a bit disappointed, to say the least.
When I played in closed beta, the game had some issues, and was limited in some ways. But I still liked it, and thought it showed a lot of promise.

I really like the whole big walking tank idea, and I used to play some MW, a long time ago, and really enjoyed it. So I really really want to like this game.
But sorry, don't think I can do it.

Sure, if you are a die-hard MW fan, who salivates at the slightest hint of mech-stuff in a game (in short: a fanboy), then this game is great, fantastic even. Simply because it has... well, it has mech stuff!

But for me, a lowly MW noob, this is quickly becoming tedious. The enemies can target and shoot at me before I can even see them. When I get closer everybody (and his aunt) has ECM, AMS, NARC, TAG, BLIP and BLAP modules installed and I'm half blind and can't do s**t.
I had a couple of games where I apparently was killed by an enemy who was standing behind me all the time, just pumping shot after shot in to my poor useless mech. And I couldn't even see him, because I lacked on or more of said cool modules.
Everybody are upgraded to their neck with all kinds of cool equipment (see above), stuff that I, as a noob, am not even close to buying, simply because I cant afford it.

Sure, I like a good challenge, but this is bordeline stupid. Challenge ok, but if you need to be a starry-eyed fanboy who just loves the pain and grind because it has a mech-stamp over it, then I think I will pass. Too bad, a waste of founder's stuff. Haven't even activated my premium time.

So, in short, devs, if you are trying the make a game that many people can like and get in to, you are on the wrong path. If you are trying to make a game exclusively targeting die-hard, long-time, MW fans, then you are spot on.

EDIT: Oh, and I get malware warnings from my browser half the times I go to these forums. Maybe you should look in to that.

Filed under QQ.

xRaeder, on 16 December 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Either PGI are poor developers (which I think they are based on the type of game they decided to make), have funneled most of the Founder's program to other projects (seeming more and more likely that it isn't being used in the development of this game), or Mechwarrior in of itself isn't F2P design friendly.

I doubt the third option is an issue seeing as I have been able to post better designs than PGI has, so I think it is a combination of 1 and 2. Incompetent developers, and funneling money to other projects. For $5 million a lot more has been done in terms of making a good game.

The most important question of all is this. And this goes is posed directly to all the MW fans out there.

Would you be playing this game if it wasn't Mechwarrior?

If the answer is no... start telling PGI how ****** they are and how to really improve the game. I've been saying it for months. Join the naysayers.

Yep, if they renamed it to Earth Assault Online, then yes, I would still be playing it.

[xRaeder]

Zero Neutral, on 16 December 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Filed under QQ.



Yep, if they renamed it to Earth Assault Online, then yes, I would still be playing it.

Then your limited imagination in terms of what a good Mechwarrior game can be made for $5 mil... fits perfectly well with PGIs limited vision.

[Zero Neutral]

xRaeder, on 16 December 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Then your limited imagination in terms of what a good Mechwarrior game can be made for $5 mil... fits perfectly well with PGIs limited vision.

Cry or play seems to be the decision that you need to make here...

The cry route: get a refund and gtfudgeo

The play route: accept that ECM is not being balanced for the current environment but for the overall electronic warfare system.

Edited by Zero Neutral, 16 December 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[Fajther]

bump I feel the same way

[Lonestar1771]

Just PGI doing what PGI does best....

[xRaeder]

Zero Neutral, on 16 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Cry or play seems to be the decision that you need to make here...

The cry route: get a refund and gtfudgeo

The play route: accept that ECM is not being balanced for the current environment but for the overall electronic warfare system.

If you'd look at my post history you'd know that my problem with the game isn't any one minor part such as ECM, but the entire vision that the developers have. It's not much of a vision really.

We haven't heard anything about CW for ages... Conquest mode will be crap because there are no respawns... 8v8 (what is this a console game?), etc.

The initial design of this game is flawed. Add in the fact that we have given them $5 million from Founders and we haven't seen a return on our investment.

The key problem is that the developers thought that Battletech could work in a small scale WoT F2P model... and it can't. Not and be true to what Battletech is.

[Lonestar1771]

xRaeder, on 16 December 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

If you'd look at my post history you'd know that my problem with the game isn't any one minor part such as ECM, but the entire vision that the developers have. It's not much of a vision really.

We haven't heard anything about CW for ages... Conquest mode will be crap because there are no respawns... 8v8 (what is this a console game?), etc.

The initial design of this game is flawed. Add in the fact that we have given them $5 million from Founders and we haven't seen a return on our investment.

The key problem is that the developers thought that Battletech could work in a small scale WoT F2P model... and it can't. Not and be true to what Battletech is.

And lets not forget that the game has gone BACKWARDS in terms of stability and bugs since closed beta.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I think their vision consists of a 2-3 week time span and can be changed through forum whine and the next technology they try and put in the game that makes them go back, break everything else, and create a new way the game is played.

It's a crap way to develop any product.

I think they had an idea of how they wanted ECM to work, but this seems like "When ideas go wrong". Someone ran with the ball beyond initial intent I think.

[xRaeder]

PANZERBUNNY, on 16 December 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I think their vision consists of a 2-3 week time span and can be changed through forum whine and the next technology they try and put in the game that makes them go back, break everything else, and create a new way the game is played.

It's a crap way to develop any product.

I think they had an idea of how they wanted ECM to work, but this seems like "When ideas go wrong". Someone ran with the ball beyond initial intent I think.

Meh, the problem isn't ECM. The problem is a lack of scale.

The smaller scale your play environment is (in this case 8v8), the more of an impact things such as Premades, AFKs, CTDs, Black Screen, Yellow Screen, or any game mechanic changes you have have on the game.

If this game were 32v32 a change in ECM wouldn't have such a profound impact on people as it does now.

[PANZERBUNNY]

It would be worse with ECM as is with more mechs on the field. It would degenerate into focus fire brawl even faster.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Rhent, on 16 December 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

Either stick to the rules or don't stick to the rules. Right now when it suits the designers they use the rules as an excuse, when it doesn't suit them they state they are doing whats best for the game.

How about the designers put in balance and counterbalance and TT rules be damned?

I said as much in a thread that got dissapeared with the new forums. I was told essentially you cant remove the TT rules cause that makes the game "battletech flavored" and therefore not a btech game

Zero Neutral, on 16 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

The cry route: get a refund and gtfudgeo

tell that to pgi and tell them to give out refunds again and Ill gladly go that route. As it is, you cant GET a refund after OB started.

xRaeder, on 16 December 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

If you'd look at my post history you'd know that my problem with the game isn't any one minor part such as ECM, but the entire vision that the developers have. It's not much of a vision really.

We haven't heard anything about CW for ages... Conquest mode will be crap because there are no respawns... 8v8 (what is this a console game?), etc.

The initial design of this game is flawed. Add in the fact that we have given them $5 million from Founders and we haven't seen a return on our investment.

The key problem is that the developers thought that Battletech could work in a small scale WoT F2P model... and it can't. Not and be true to what Battletech is.

truth

[xRaeder]

PANZERBUNNY, on 16 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

It would be worse with ECM as is with more mechs on the field. It would degenerate into focus fire brawl even faster.

Not really. Think about it. Right now you have a very small chance of having an ECM equipped Mech on your team. However if you all of a sudden have 31 other players playing... then your odds of having an ECM equipped Mech... and thus the people to counter it... go up dramatically.

But increasing player counts to be in line with most MODERN FPSes on the PC is part of a larger package. If you would look at my post history you'd see I realize this and have thus designed a new game around that. A better game than the one we have currently in my opinion... and certainly one that is feasible on a $5+ million budget.

Edited by xRaeder, 16 December 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[xRaeder]

Tickdoff Tank, on 16 December 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

You should get a refund. You seem highly dissatisfied with the game, I doubt that a couple months will make enough of a difference.



They are making a LOT of long time MW fans happy. And they are making some unhappy. Did you expect anything else?

Assuming for a moment that this wasn't Mechwarrior. Would you be playing it? If no...

[PANZERBUNNY]

..in a PUG. A small chance of ECM in a PUG.

I don't have a padded helmet to drown myself in the sorrow that is PUGGING.

Also, mech battles that large mean whoever gets a few kills lead snowballs the living hell out of the enemy.

Think how easy it can snowball now and we're only doing 8v8

[Gaeb]

PANZERBUNNY, on 16 December 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

I think their vision consists of a 2-3 week time span and can be changed through forum whine and the next technology they try and put in the game that makes them go back, break everything else, and create a new way the game is played.

It's a crap way to develop any product.

I think they had an idea of how they wanted ECM to work, but this seems like "When ideas go wrong". Someone ran with the ball beyond initial intent I think.

There's this whole dev forum that... wait, its you. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[PANZERBUNNY]

xRaeder, on 16 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Assuming for a moment that this wasn't Mechwarrior. Would you be playing it? If no...

This is very true.

If only I could pilot a little car after I die and mechs can try and step on me. That would make me so happy to continue playing the game.