179 replies to this topic

[Captain Tacki]

The solution is not, stripping your AC20 out of your Atlas because it has a high random chance of being destroyed, the solution is: "not taking damage to your side torso with the AC20."

While damage leads to some random effects happening to your mech, damage will, inevitably, destroy your mech. Avoid the damage. There's nothing random about that facet of it.Turn your torso away from the enemy while it's reloading the AC20. If the devs were to make it so weapons weren't destroyed when they took damage, then this game would devolve from a "mech combat simulation" game, to a run of the mill first person shooter. If MWO turned into that it wouldn't be deserving of the word "Mechwarrior" in the title because it would be nothing like the old school mechwarrior PC games in the past. It would just be another failure like the Mechassault Franchise.

I'll grant that maybe the AC20 needs more health so that it lasts almost as long as the internals on the torso would but for me, the random chance kind of makes things more exciting. And, I feel I only have myself to blame for losing it by letting it get shot at in the first place.

[zverofaust]

Praehotec8, on 13 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Sorry, OP, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Location based damage and component destruction is possibly THE coolest mechanic in the game. You can focus fire to target regions to achieve particular results, or spread your damage evenly for a different outcome. Should there be degrees of damage before total loss of a component? Maybe, but it seems unnecessary, and I doubt it is something that will be implemented. Bottom line, don't tell me you don't feel all fuzzy inside when watching that Atlas's arm fall off after you chewed through his side torso? If you don't then you need to find another game or knitting, because....giant stompy robots are all about knocking each other's parts off!

I have modified my post to make it clearer I am talking about the destruction of internal equipment, not whole Mech components (RT/arms/etc).

I too like the ability to damage different parts and want to maintain that, and gave suggestions as to how that can be maintained while keeping gameplay more consistent and adding to tactical depth and complexity.

But I guess you didn't read the actual post, only skimmed the first sentence or two.

[Bryan Kerensky]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I have modified my post to make it clearer I am talking about the destruction of internal equipment, not whole Mech components (RT/arms/etc).

I too like the ability to damage different parts and want to maintain that, and gave suggestions as to how that can be maintained while keeping gameplay more consistent and adding to tactical depth and complexity.

But I guess you didn't read the actual post, only skimmed the first sentence or two.

Mustrum has given a good suggestion in response to your OP. I would suggest you benign his thoughtful post with some recognition.

[Tennex]

Zero Neutral, on 13 February 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Are you kidding me? Given that ECM can only fit on CERTAIN MECHS, why would a pilot NOT TAKE ECM ON THAT ECM RESTRICTED MECH!? STOP! No one ever thinks to themselves, "Hmm, I could take another medium laser or this ECM," that is just so naive. ECM is on the mech WITHOUT A DOUBT NO QUESTIONS ASKED because it is an ECM RESTRICTED MECH. Players sacrifice leg armor to put an ECM on, not weapon sytems... I am done with ya.

really? can you think of no other item that only is fit on certain mechs. that is not used ubiquitously?

oh i duno maybe JUMP JETS?


you see other people using that 2 tons for jump jets and weighing it in a decision with other items? oh yeah they do that all the time. THATS WHY NOT EVERY MECH THAT CAN EQUIP JUMP JETS DO!

Edited by Tennex, 13 February 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[Nightcrept]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Perfect reason why people don't listen to you, is because you don't make sense, and people know how to counter it, they tell you how, and yet people ignore it. Oh yes, your analogy also holds true to AMS, so AMS and that 1 ton of ammo makes me sacrifice weapons and armor, oh I should probably say LRMs and AMS is OP right?

Your points are juvenile and vastly illogical. Claiming over and over that something is not op because you can kill it is not a valid argument. The majority of players have voted over and over that ecm is op.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

really? can you think of no other item that only is fit on certain mechs. that is not used ubiquitously?

i duno maybe jump jets?


you see other people using that 2 tons for jump jets and weighing it in a decision with other items? oh yeah they do that all the time. THATS WHY NOT EVERY MECH THAT CAN EQUIP JUMP JETS DO!

I think Volthorne and I have already gone through the reason for and against ECM in a topic that was never real talking about it. I would suggest returning back on topic as we have.

Nightcrept, on 13 February 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Your points are juvenile and vastly illogical. Claiming over and over that something is not op because you can kill it is not a valid argument. The majority of players have voted over and over that ecm is op.

And your ad hoc statements don't help either. But enough of that and get back to what the OP was about.

Edited by Bryan Kerensky, 13 February 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[OneEyed Jack]

zverofaust, on 13 February 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Quoting rule declarations from a 30 year old rulebook designed for a turn-based tabletop strategy game and trying to apply them to a 2013 competitive multiplayer online sim/shooter is simply a bad idea. Quite possibly worse than using realism as the basis for an argument.

Well, it's not 30 years old, but that's neither here not there.

The point is that it's not a bad argument and, quite frankly, is the only argument that matters. If you don't want to play a game based on Battletech, then play a game that isn't based on Battletech. This game, while some allowances are made to adjust for a sim-esque FPS, is quite explicitly based on BT, and expecting changes to be made so that it's a completely different game is actually the worst possible argument. There's already other games not based on BT. There's even giant robot games not based on BT. The reason to play this one, as opposed to those, is.... wait for it.... it's based on BT (or on previous MW titles for those that don't know the true glory).

Yes, I'm aware that huge liberties were taken with the system in previous MW titles, but it doesn't mean those liberties should have been taken or that the games were better for it. You may prefer the way other games do things, but that's only an opinion. My own opinion is that if they were to make it like other FPS, I would immediately lose interest, quit playing, and certainly spend no more money on it.

I like BT. A lot of people like BT. It has a huge and fanatically loyal following. It has such a fanatical following that it continued to be played and picked right back up after years of being out of print. So, they can cater to the fanatical BT/MW fans or the video gamers that want them to be another flash-in-the-pan carbon copy. Hmmmm.... tough choice.

[Taizan]

Critical damage is the salt in the soup. I like it. Changing it to a linear damage model would take out random excitement imo.

Still do not understand why an Atlas with AC20 is a lump of coal.

[Nunspa]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

so why did they nerf it in such a manner. and i don't know about you but i get 500-700 damage with gausskat and 2-4 kills per game

and I have reached 600 with my trinity of ultra AC/5's.... your point?

[Tennex]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

I think Volthorne and I have already gone through the reason for and against ECM in a topic that was never real talking about it. I would suggest returning back on topic as we have.

i'm sorry with howw often threads become hijacked into being about ECM i hadn't realized how the thread has moved on. yet people still deny that there are issues.

and im pretty sure what i said completely destroys his argument. if you even bother to actually think over some of these discussions and points being made

Edited by Tennex, 13 February 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[Nightcrept]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

i'm sorry with howw often threads become hijacked into being about ECM i hadn't realized how the thread has moved on. yet people still deny that there are issues.

A vocal minority.

[Tennex]

Nightcrept, on 13 February 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

A vocal minority.

lol were you not here for the polls?

[Nightcrept]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

lol were you not here for the polls?

I was saying only a vocal minority still think nothing is wrong with ecm and other issues like ssrm's.

[Davers]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

i'm sorry with howw often threads become hijacked into being about ECM i hadn't realized how the thread has moved on. yet people still deny that there are issues.

and im pretty sure what i said completely destroys his argument. if you even bother to actually think over some of these discussions and points being made

I would like to point out that you were the one that first mentioned ECM in this thread.

[Tennex]

Nightcrept, on 13 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

I was saying only a vocal minority still think nothing is wrong with ecm and other issues like ssrm's.

ah my bad :\. sure seems like the vocal minority is active in this thread.

[Wadesin]

People I know this is beta. Its a great great game mechanics and balance is sound. So fed up of posts from people who want things thier way . Go play minecraft.

[Tennex]

Davers, on 13 February 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

I would like to point out that you were the one that first mentioned ECM in this thread.

it takes 2 to dance. and the thread has been derailed yet again. its just too easy.

because its a hot topic. because theres an issue.

[Volthorne]

BACK TO THE TOPIC!

Volthorne, on 13 February 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Everyone NEEDS to read this (especially you, zvero): Critical System Health Suggestion

If need be I will quote this as many times as necessary.

[OneEyed Jack]

Nightcrept, on 13 February 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Your points are juvenile and vastly illogical. Claiming over and over that something is not op because you can kill it is not a valid argument. The majority of players have voted over and over that ecm is op.

Which just goes to show you don't understand the internet, in general, and game forums, specifically. The vast majority of players don't read, submit or vote on these boards. The people that do are just a very vocal minority.

[Bryan Kerensky]

Nightcrept, on 13 February 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

I was saying only a vocal minority still think nothing is wrong with ecm and other issues like ssrm's.

I think I've said it before, but I think people misunderstand on my stance and some of the others on ECM. Granted, some people take that ECM has no issues and are at where it is supposed to be, I personally do not agree with them. Yes, I agree ECM and SSRMs have some work that can be done to tweak them. However, as I stated before, my issue comes when people gnash their teeth as if either of these issues has somehow greatly destroyed their ability to play with success. We understand there are issues but it get really sickening when they're mentioned again and again and again.

Volthorne, on 13 February 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

BACK TO THE TOPIC!

I think his issue is that the solution put forth in that topic is still too 'random' for his taste.