108 replies to this topic

[Ryvucz]

Felix, on 24 December 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Damn! sounds like mommy and daddy kinda sucked D:

In this case you are exempt! But now you can play Megamek if you wanted to experiance the tabletop!

Thanks for exempting me. XD

[Deadoon]

Pht, on 24 December 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

... and how is it that the C3 systems don't make any sense?

C3 systems are something that requires a master and slaves, problem is that unless someone uses up a large amount of tonnage for a master, all those c3 systems are useless, thus you have an item that is either reliant on you dropping solely with a group of friends or you are at the mercy of a random team. Also, the way it would have to be implemented would make scouting useless unless your whole team had either c3 or was in team speak with each other which bypasses the benefit of c3 relaying targets, as you can do that by voice already. So an implementation of c3/i, beyond being an overpowering element for guardian ecm(acting like a c3 boosted) would not make sense in this game. Now if we had c3i that was a forward only system, it would make sense, you could forward targets, so long as you have it and anyone could receive it even without c3i. Maybe make it like a c3i boosted and allow transmission to other people with c3i if you are in an enemy ecm as well.

[Pht]

Deadoon, on 24 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

C3 systems are something that requires a master and slaves, problem is that unless someone uses up a large amount of tonnage for a master, all those c3 systems are useless, thus you have an item that is either reliant on you dropping solely with a group of friends or you are at the mercy of a random team.

Oh, you didn't mean "no sense" as in fallacious/irrational.

Yes, the C3 is balanced by some pretty big downsides to match for it's big upsides. That doesn't necessarily render it useless. C3i is a pretty big step up... of course, I wonder how we could be having c3 or c3i in the 3040-(early)3050's timeframe.

Quote

Also, the way it would have to be implemented would make scouting useless unless your whole team had either c3 or was in team speak with each other which bypasses the benefit of c3 relaying targets, as you can do that by voice already. So an implementation of c3/i, beyond being an overpowering element for guardian ecm(acting like a c3 boosted) would not make sense in this game.

Did you know that every 'Mech can already share some telemetry and such via normal communication channels? ... with the downside being that the channels can go in/out from time to time, and getting less information than a dedicated c3/c3i system gives (the balancing factors)?

[Kousagi]

KharnZor, on 24 December 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Get over yourself. what you stated was obvious.
And applying psychology to something on the internet is stupid AND ignorant.
Take your entry level trolling elsewhere.

Its quite ironic. If I was indeed trolling you then you have failed and fallen in to the trap. Plus why would you not use psychology on everything in your life? Its a tool to be used to understand. Its stupid and ignorant to not want to understand.

But again, why pay attention to me? I'm just a stupid and ignorant troll.

[Deadoon]

Pht, on 24 December 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Oh, you didn't mean "no sense" as in fallacious/irrational.

Yes, the C3 is balanced by some pretty big downsides to match for it's big upsides. That doesn't necessarily render it useless. C3i is a pretty big step up... of course, I wonder how we could be having c3 or c3i in the 3040-(early)3050's timeframe.



Did you know that every 'Mech can already share some telemetry and such via normal communication channels? ... with the downside being that the channels can go in/out from time to time, and getting less information than a dedicated c3/c3i system gives (the balancing factors)?

The thing is, we are already recieving the near full benifits of c3 already. the reason why I was suggesting that form of implementation of c3i was due to the fact that you have to take into account out of game measures such as team speak when adding a communication or information distribution system. I was speaking about, since c3 is already implemented in the sense of we are already befitting from it without it being a separate entity. Addition of c3i, or c3, in the sense which i was describing early would allow for advanced scouting and a counter for ecm. Mount a c3i and other people on your team can now see that enemy you are targeting while affected by ecm. However, it only relays this location, rather than allow your tracking sensors to get through the ecm field, hence your allies can now use lrm and ssrm on him, but you still cannot due to jamming.

[Felix]

Ryvucz, on 24 December 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Thanks for exempting me. XD

its the least I can do after the horror, pure unadulterated horror, of a childhood of missing out on battletech :3

[Tennex]

for this game to grow into something we all want. (faster mech release, more reliable patches, bigger servers, faster content release, faster community warfare)

We need new players.

The hardcore mechwarrior attitude is not conducive to new players. We are hurting ourselves and PGI with this attitude.

[Illya Ghost Bear]

disagree.

Casual players, by definition are the ones least likely to pay money to support game (and first to cry P2W), whereas die hard core players, if the game stay true are the ones that support game for YEARS. Look at MekTek, League of Legends and such, all started without major studio help.

You cannot ignore core players on a storied intellectual property like this. Seriously, no one would try to suggest this stuff about a Star Wars game, somehow, it is OK to butcher mechwarrior tho?

Dumb.

[Thirdstar]

Illyana Arkhipova, on 24 December 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

disagree.

Casual players, by definition are the ones least likely to pay money to support game (and first to cry P2W), whereas die hard core players, if the game stay true are the ones that support game for YEARS. Look at MekTek, League of Legends and such, all started without major studio help.

You cannot ignore core players on a storied intellectual property like this. Seriously, no one would try to suggest this stuff about a Star Wars game, somehow, it is OK to butcher mechwarrior tho?

Dumb.

Okay, i'll bite. What are the core rules in Star Wars?

Also you're confusing playstyle preferences with interest in the setting. I'm a longtime Battletech/Mechwarrior fan, yet my playstyle is casual. Also traditionally in F2P casual players are the ones who spend more and the hardcores are the one who have enough free time/interest to just grind out to whatever they want instead of forking out the cash. Please, I don't mean this in a negative way, but do some basic research about F2P trends and system.

Edited by Thirdstar, 24 December 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[Star Wolves Admin Account]

The game is far better balanced than any of the previous mechwarrior computer games. Also, its not as if the table top was perfectly balanced (look at the basic autocannon).

[Thirdstar]

Blueduck, on 24 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

The game is far better balanced than any of the previous mechwarrior computer games. Also, its not as if the table top was perfectly balanced (look at the basic autocannon).

This is a good point. TT isn't some sort of Holy Gold Standard that needs to be adhered to just because. TT was also easily munchkined. If TT mechanics were like MWO you'd be damn sure people would be creating the same setups you find here.

[Vermaxx]

Tabletop let you easily make mechs that never overheated. Granted, we have three times the rate of fire on average, but there you go.

Tabletop never really dealt with repair, because Battletech was not designed for campaign 'role playing' use.

The repair and rearm system was only punishing assault players, people with huge ammo stores, and people who religiously paid for every cost. People who took free ammo, didn't repair items, and sometimes skipped armor repairs paid next to nothing.

The modification lowered the pay for all of us selectively repairing, which was our right under the old system. It raised the pay for everyone with ammo-heavy mechs or assaults.

Most of what they did in this patch makes sense for the game we have. It isn't casuals versus hardcores, it is paying customers versus free players. The game needs more money, period. The game is also a horribly barebones demo of what it could be, and will be so for months. PGI wants it to survive, so they're taking out some of the options that shouldn't be in this demo until they have the full game up and running.

Repair and rearm makes sense in Community Warfare, where it can be entirely dependent on your affiliation and the success of your unit. It made no sense in a game where everyone has unlimited access to weapons, ammo, and repair services regardless of how bad they played.

[Illya Ghost Bear]

Vermaxx, on 24 December 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Tabletop let you easily make mechs that never overheated. Granted, we have three times the rate of fire on average, but there you go.

Tabletop never really dealt with repair, because Battletech was not designed for campaign 'role playing' use.

The repair and rearm system was only punishing assault players, people with huge ammo stores, and people who religiously paid for every cost. People who took free ammo, didn't repair items, and sometimes skipped armor repairs paid next to nothing.

The modification lowered the pay for all of us selectively repairing, which was our right under the old system. It raised the pay for everyone with ammo-heavy mechs or assaults.

Most of what they did in this patch makes sense for the game we have. It isn't casuals versus hardcores, it is paying customers versus free players. The game needs more money, period. The game is also a horribly barebones demo of what it could be, and will be so for months. PGI wants it to survive, so they're taking out some of the options that shouldn't be in this demo until they have the full game up and running.

Repair and rearm makes sense in Community Warfare, where it can be entirely dependent on your affiliation and the success of your unit. It made no sense in a game where everyone has unlimited access to weapons, ammo, and repair services regardless of how bad they played.

Actually TT dealt with repair. Only skipped it if your gamemaster was too lazy, or group did not want to do it. TT had full rules for re-arm and repair, even with Battleforce large force rules.

[CypherHalo]

Tennex, on 24 December 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

for this game to grow into something we all want. (faster mech release, more reliable patches, bigger servers, faster content release, faster community warfare)

We need new players.

The hardcore mechwarrior attitude is not conducive to new players. We are hurting ourselves and PGI with this attitude.

You make so much sense. I don't think PGI was listening to people like you before but are now. I would guess it has to do with their business not thriving. Hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be surprised. Here is one MW fan who is NOT impressed by this game.

Pht, on 24 December 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I used to think this before I realized that so far, all of the previous MW games have been trying to stuff MW - a first person armored combat piloting simulation ... into the "quake/ut" box.

You are . . . well, I'll just say wrong. I'm sick and tired of people complaining that any changes away from the TT are an attempt to make this game into some standard FPS. Maybe PGI shares your attitude and that is why they made such stupid decisions. I am not so prideful to think that MWO can't learn from what has worked and hasn't worked in other games. I also am not stupid enough to forget that there are other games out there for a person to play if they don't like this one. Finally, if I wanted this to be some standard shooter, I WOULD BE PLAYING ONE, there are TONS of them out there. What I want, the only thing I want, is for this game to be FUN. I don't care about the TT rules or the minutiae of the lore. So long as you have some of the basics, mechs, heat, the familiar weapons, that's all I need. Everything beyond that should be crafted towards making the game FUN. If the game isn't FUN, why play?

This game will not be fun until PGI gets their act together and starts implementing some features you do see in other games. Why are they in those other games? Oh, because that makes those games more FUN. They don't have to lose the slower paced tactical nature of the combat. They don't have to make any major changes to the combat at all. They have to throw in some more game modes, such as TDM and FFA (limited by weight class). Community warfare is cool but is only for the hardcore. Casual players are unlikely to want to commit to that and IMO MWO is very unfriendly to the casual crowd (no tutorial, what is up with that???). Get a big playerbase and then do things for the hardcore. Not the other way around. They also need respawns in this game. I have never played an multiplayer game without them and now, I CAN SEE WHY. Keep Assault mode as it is with no respawns but they need to be in every other game mode and PGI needs more game modes STAT. Those things would go a long way towards making this a far more enjoyable MW game. Not some military shooter or Quake or whatever, a more enjoyable MW game. I loved MW4 (and 3 and 2), but this game just doesn't compare. It is not nearly as engaging or enjoyable. It is not even as much fun as other F2P titles. I hate to say that because I want to love this game but that's the way it is. Maybe I'm alone but seeing the recent changes made by PGi, I don't think I am.

P.S. My apologies for the all caps. They're an easy way to emphasize, not meant as yelling. Good luck to PGI, I hope this game succeeds but I'm not going to throw money at them based off a hope. I'll only give them money when I'm enjoying myself.

Edited by CypherHalo, 24 December 2012 - 11:12 PM.

[p4r4g0n]

@CypherHalo

On the one hand you're asking for a non-standard shooter, on the other hand you say you've never played a MMO without respawns and you're giving out examples of game modes other standard shooters have. You give the impression of being somewhat conflicted?

America's Army Online didn't have respawns and that was a pretty fun FPS. Then again, CS bunnies tended to hate it cos bunny hopping did jack, you could die from a single shot (not a headshot) and sniping actually took skill (edit: I mean actual real life sniping skills).

Personally, the last two patches i.e. ECM & the changed reward system seemed to have changed the game play in a way that I find less interesting BUT they seemed to have hit upon a combination that would be accessible by the casual gamer which is a good thing. Over all, I think I see where PGI is going with this and believe that it is possible that even the "hardcore" players may be satisfied with the final version.

In the meantime, I'm reserving judgement until PGI has put all the elements of MWO in place and will just have fun playing the game as is.

Edited by p4r4g0n, 25 December 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[jakucha]

You shouldn't expect a "hardcore" focused title from a f2p game, just saying. I would prefer the game be closer to that, but I'll take what I can get as we don't have other Mechwarrior options.

[KharnZor]

Kousagi, on 24 December 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

I'm just a stupid and ignorant troll.

Yes. yes you are. You didnt even see what i did there.

[SmoothCriminal]

Deadoon, on 24 December 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Bad grammer, generic name, liking your own post, and not even spacing it out along with not even paying attention to the forums?


Here is a little tip, around 90% of us don't want third person and RnR was broken at a core level, armor cost more to repair that Xl engines, ammo costs more than armor and we don't even get adequate amounts of it per ton either compared to TT. An ac/2 is pretty much equivalent to 3 Rotary ac/2 and an ultra combined. The ppc is a direct damage, minimum range effective version of the large laser, with large lasers firing for an entire second at a time.

Also, narc beacons need proper ammo, narc capable ammo. That costs as much as artemis ammo but you don't hear people complain about that do you?

Most people who want the franchise to stay true to lore are over reaching, some of the stuff makes sense in a game but other stuff doesn't at all, such as C3 systems and command consoles. They fixed the issue by making all everyone have C3, and command consoles will have some other use.

Net code they are working on, give it time. Also the thing about hard core players raising concerns and being shunned is due to lack of foresight by those "hard core" players. They don't understand half the time that they alone cannot support this game, the game needs the masses, the moderate game players, the common player, the pick up gamer, the "casual". You cannot make a game and expect it to succeed without a massive target audience.


Oh and here is a thing about overheating mechs, most mech designs do not overheat, even with alpha strikes in tt.

If you're going to slate someone on bad spelling and grammAr, make sure yours is in better shape!

[Cato Phoenix]

I do feel it's kind of kiddie-gloves to have no Repair/Re-Arm. Felt like you were actually managing a bay of mechs, where you had to perform to upkeep the bigger mechs.

[Buck Cake]

Completely agree with the OP.