31 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 February 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

This is cow excrement. I ma not talking about random dice rolls, I am talking about typical weapon loadouts. There is nothing unique about real time 3D games with mouse aiming that would make it impossible to support Battletech typical weapon loadouts. You just need to set the stats so that if the table top game says "8 medium lasers with 21 standard heat sinks is a good build" is also a good build in your game. If currently 4 Medium Lasers with 21 standard heat sinks would be better, just lower the damage by half and lower the heat by a bit more so people can equip 8 medium lasers for the same damage and weight investment (accounting for heat sinks and the extray weight of the 4 extra medium lasers). It's not black magic, it doesn't require random hit locations or dice rolls or hexes.

Im sorry... is MWO using the 10 second delay between alpha strikes? No. Arent all the stock configs set up like BT varients? I believe they are.... If you so love playing it just like TT, then use only stock configs and only fire your weapons once every 10 seconds.....

[KuruptU4Fun]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

We are talking philosophies here... concepts... way of thinking. Not actual parts of the game.

But you can't take a philosophy or a concept and jump directly to an end game. A concept becomes a game thru research and development. I would agree with most that MW should have stayed in CB, but that was not the devs call, but the producers...

[Mackman]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

We are talking philosophies here... concepts... way of thinking. Not actual parts of the game.

The funny thing is, those same developers are the ones people (probably like you) raged at when they nerfed junglers because any overextension at all in high-level games resulted in an instant, inescapable gank. People (probably like you) were screaming that Riot was dumbing down the game: Riot responded that "Only ever last-hit under tower" wasn't the game they were designing, and they were taking steps to mitigate that.

PGI doesn't want a game where PPCs/ERPPCs/LPLs are very niche weapons that often are straight-up worse than other weapons. Were they difficult to use "properly"? Maybe. The thing is that you aren't the one who gets to define "proper usage". Also, you seem to be forgetting that "Difficult" does NOT always equal "good game design." In this very post, Morello says that Burning Crusade was the "sweet spot", despite the fact that you would probably see it as dumbing down the original WoW.

And the really funny thing is, you could have made the exact same post targeting whatever changes the devs made. "Nice increase on LPL damage, devs... nice dummy-proofing!" Do you see how this works? It's because when all you do is use a phrase that you think sounds good, like "dummy-proofing," but don't actually offer any arguments at all as to why the features you're talking about are bad, it makes your argument meaningless, because there isn't actually any argument: it's just words.

[Teralitha]

Mackman, on 06 February 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

The funny thing is, those same developers are the ones people (probably like you) raged at when they nerfed junglers because any overextension at all in high-level games resulted in an instant, inescapable gank. People (probably like you) were screaming that Riot was dumbing down the game: Riot responded that "Only ever last-hit under tower" wasn't the game they were designing, and they were taking steps to mitigate that.

PGI doesn't want a game where PPCs/ERPPCs/LPLs are very niche weapons that often are straight-up worse than other weapons. Were they difficult to use "properly"? Maybe. The thing is that you aren't the one who gets to define "proper usage". Also, you seem to be forgetting that "Difficult" does NOT always equal "good game design." In this very post, Morello says that Burning Crusade was the "sweet spot", despite the fact that you would probably see it as dumbing down the original WoW.

And the really funny thing is, you could have made the exact same post targeting whatever changes the devs made. "Nice increase on LPL damage, devs... nice dummy-proofing!" Do you see how this works? It's because when all you do is use a phrase that you think sounds good, like "dummy-proofing," but don't actually offer any arguments at all as to why the features you're talking about are bad, it makes your argument meaningless, because there isn't actually any argument: it's just words.

because heat management is a skill, and by reducing the heat production of various weapons... they are making heat management meaningless... ie dumbing down the game.

They are basically doing this to appease the players who hate managing heat and want to boat large energry weapons and fire them non stop. And that is not good for the game.

Edited by Teralitha, 06 February 2013 - 08:01 AM.

[Congzilla]

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

This isn't a competitive game.

We must be playing different games.

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

It's always the best choice for damage. Missiles are strong? Catapult can boat the most. Ballistics are strong? Catapult can boat two almost untouchable ones in the side torsos. Lasers are really good? It can boat four.

It has the best twist, the best shape, the best variants, and full access to everything you'd want.

Now that I can't argue with.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Damage vs. size vs. HM vs. usage = gameplay in MW it's a metagame that starts when you are in the mechlab, not out in the field.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

It's always the best choice for damage. Missiles are strong? Catapult can boat the most. Ballistics are strong? Catapult can boat two almost untouchable ones in the side torsos. Lasers are really good? It can boat four.

It has the best twist, the best shape, the best variants, and full access to everything you'd want.

PGI has discussed bringing modules in that can call for artillery strikes already. Those strikes are a good counter to something that requires you to stop and shoot something else for the best accuracy possible.

[Teralitha]

KuruptU4Fun, on 06 February 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

PGI has discussed bringing modules in that can call for artillery strikes already. Those strikes are a good counter to something that requires you to stop and shoot something else for the best accuracy possible.

It would also be good against teams that use static camping.

[Mackman]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

because heat management is a skill, and by reducing the heat production of various weapons... they are making heat management meaningless... ie dumbing down the game.

They are basically doing this to appease the players who hate managing heat and want to boat large energry weapons and fire them non stop. And that is not good for the game.

Alright then. Would you be happy if all heat was multiplied by a factor of 2 or 3? Clearly that would be a good change for the game, right, since then heat management would be much harder and require much more skill? Clearly this version of the game that we have right now is waaay more dumbed down than that awesome version of the game where two medium lasers takes you up to 50%. Man, that game sounds awesome!

[Teralitha]

Mackman, on 06 February 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Alright then. Would you be happy if all heat was multiplied by a factor of 2 or 3? Clearly that would be a good change for the game, right, since then heat management would be much harder and require much more skill? Clearly this version of the game that we have right now is waaay more dumbed down than that awesome version of the game where two medium lasers takes you up to 50%. Man, that game sounds awesome!

I think you misread my posts.... where did I say I wanted weapons to create more heat?

[Mackman]

Teralitha, on 06 February 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I think you misread my posts.... where did I say I wanted weapons to create more heat?

Well, you want heat management to be difficult, right? Because then you get to demonstrate more skill, right? So if less heat management is always bad, then more heat management is always good.

I know that's not what you ultimately want to say. But that's exactly where your argument leads. Your only argument so far is "moar heat management good! Less heat management dumb!" And that's true... to a point. But you completely fail to argue for why that point is where you say it is.

Now, you think that the game is better when LPLs/etc. are borderline unusable and are incredibly niche. PGI thinks that the game is better when they're still heat monsters, but can be used a little more freely. You can't argue for difficulty just for the sake of difficulty: Otherwise, why not <insert pointless mechanic whose only purpose is to add difficulty>?

[nksharp]

Vassago Rain, on 06 February 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

This isn't a competitive game.

Not sure why they would bother saying they are making community warfare then. Pretty abysmal support for competitive play at the moment though, that much is true.