76 Reply by GLiMPSE (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 21:40:38)

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Container wrote:

Actually, all it would take to fix the usefulness of mechs/heavy mechs would be:
a) Increase mech speed by 10kph.
b) Give heavy mechs the ability to switch to vehicle mode (1 min to convert) to move faster but be defenceless during vehicle mode.
c) Reduce weapon size by 10-20 percent for all medium weapons.
Done.

No, light bots are not going to be irrelevant, the gap in usefulness between lights and mechs/heavy mechs will just be not so large.
There is too much fear of rendering small bots useless.
They won't be useless and they should not be in the main spotlight anyway.
Mechs should the central class in the mech genre.

Obvious, transformer troll is obvious.

Can't believe it took me so long to catch on -- I must be getting rusty with the recent layoff. Good job. +5 CoolPoints™.

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • GG
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

you guys aren't running around in ugly spider bots. You guys are trying to run after us in your mechs when we roam your island daily in our ugly spider bots, but aren't succeeding, since your mechs can't keep up with the fast bots.

a) Increase mech speed by 10kph. [so we can keep up with your fast bots]
b) Give heavy mechs the ability to switch to vehicle mode (1 min to convert) to move faster but be defenceless during vehicle mode. [in case we can't keep up with your fast bots]
c) Reduce weapon size by 10-20 percent for all medium weapons. [in case we still can't keep up, and need more speed from being lighter]
Done. [yay we have fast bot mechs now]

And so now we roam daily on your islands in mechs, and fast bots are no longer used in game.
Done.

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Heckle wrote:

you guys aren't running around in ugly spider bots. You guys are trying to run after us in your mechs when we roam your island daily in our ugly spider bots, but aren't succeeding, since your mechs can't keep up with the fast bots.

a) Increase mech speed by 10kph. [so we can keep up with your fast bots]
b) Give heavy mechs the ability to switch to vehicle mode (1 min to convert) to move faster but be defenceless during vehicle mode. [in case we can't keep up with your fast bots]
c) Reduce weapon size by 10-20 percent for all medium weapons. [in case we still can't keep up, and need more speed from being lighter]
Done. [yay we have fast bot mechs now]

I want the same thing on my intakt please!
hahaha <3

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Yuis wrote:
Heckle wrote:

you guys aren't running around in ugly spider bots. You guys are trying to run after us in your mechs when we roam your island daily in our ugly spider bots, but aren't succeeding, since your mechs can't keep up with the fast bots.

a) Increase mech speed by 10kph. [so we can keep up with your fast bots]
b) Give heavy mechs the ability to switch to vehicle mode (1 min to convert) to move faster but be defenceless during vehicle mode. [in case we can't keep up with your fast bots]
c) Reduce weapon size by 10-20 percent for all medium weapons. [in case we still can't keep up, and need more speed from being lighter]
Done. [yay we have fast bot mechs now]

I want the same thing on my intakt please!
hahaha <3

Cmon guys, lay off a little.

The AXE guys are looking for a way to get off of norhoop and save face at the same time... don't make it any harder on them. They want the DEV's to be their scapegoats...

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Yes Heckle you are right. At least i enjoy a variety of bots over using the same ones over and over just to win.

Oh i forgot - its your leetness that makes you superior and your awesome knowledge of this so complicated game.

You come as a small group, find an opponent and try to taunt him, the fight starts, skill, skill and again skill leads to your victory and you start writing short forum postings.

You keep modest and totally unexcited and by that appear for all involved like the winner!

81 Reply by GLiMPSE (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 22:13:01)

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Redline wrote:

Yes Heckle you are right. At least i enjoy a variety of bots over using the same ones over and over just to win.

Oh i forgot - its your leetness that makes you superior and your awesome knowledge of this so complicated game.

You come as a small group, find an opponent and try to taunt him, the fight starts, skill, skill and again skill leads to your victory and you start writing short forum postings.

You keep modest and totally unexcited and by that appear for all involved like the winner!

These links took some time and effort. That's worth a couple of points. The message was lost though -- it was nonsensical.. but I am a forgiving master.

+2 CoolPoints™

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • TM-UAS
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Redline wrote:

Campana is right but Container has a point also. With more objectives mechs could become viable - but open pvp is and will be king. There should be no domitaing role in that - and if there should be one - of course not the cheapest bots. Thats common sense.


True as far as it goes. But unless you guys are fond of the zerg rush type tactic(where have we seen that before in another sci fi game?...^^), mechs and heavies should have more application than they currently do.  Out posts should be MUCH more than they currently are. Their possession should seriously matter. Not to mention they should have defenses inherent to their nature.  Mechs(and especially heavies) depending on their load out should have major advantages against lower class bots.  On the other hand, if they aren't properly played, moded, they would be expensive losses.

As for open PvP... We've been round and round that topic before... If the Dev's want a limited appeal to a very *small* demographic, thats the way to proceed. If not, they will moderate their movement towards that objective.

If you can't kill it, don't make it mad.
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Wraithbane wrote:
Redline wrote:

Campana is right but Container has a point also. With more objectives mechs could become viable - but open pvp is and will be king. There should be no domitaing role in that - and if there should be one - of course not the cheapest bots. Thats common sense.

Mechs(and especially heavies) depending on their load out should have major advantages against lower class bots.

2 to 3 times the range, damage, and hp.

I'd say that's significant.

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I don't think P<0.1 there.

  • GG
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

ok ... jokey tone and witty posts aside. The point that has been made is that if you make the mechs able to keep up with fast bots' speed, fast bots will remain in storage with no purpose (mechs can demob too), so now there is no need to use any other bot type.

Annihilator said: Walking careless onto hokko without masking is like jumping into a bathtub with the hungry 30cm piranhas (infestation)
GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Heckle wrote:

ok ... jokey tone and witty posts aside. The point that has been made is that if you make the mechs able to keep up with fast bots' speed, fast bots will remain in storage with no purpose (mechs can demob too), so now there is no need to use any other bot type.

Mechs could then demob from further, demob more and have less cap issues doing it with more firepower.

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Shaedys wrote:
Heckle wrote:

ok ... jokey tone and witty posts aside. The point that has been made is that if you make the mechs able to keep up with fast bots' speed, fast bots will remain in storage with no purpose (mechs can demob too), so now there is no need to use any other bot type.

Mechs could then demob from further, demob more and have less cap issues doing it with more firepower.

Sounds balanced to me.

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Sure, making mechs faster doesnt make sense.

@ Wraith - i meant open pvp as in beta roamings.

The thing is - none of all the ideas will work isolated - a change that now may not appear reasonable might do so if other things get implemented. Thats the problem on all of this. Only a whole concept can suceed.

My concern on this topic simply is the variety of bots actually being used, but overall - well - we need more sand!

89 Reply by GLiMPSE (edited by GLiMPSE 2011-02-11 22:39:36)

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Redline wrote:

Sure, making mechs faster doesnt make sense.

@ Wraith - i meant open pvp as in beta roamings.

The thing is - none of all the ideas will work isolated - a change that now may not appear reasonable might do so if other things get implemented. Thats the problem on all of this. Only a whole concept can suceed.

My concern on this topic simply is the variety of bots actually being used, but overall - well - we need more sand!

I agree, I want to stomp around in my Gropho as bad as the next guy... trust me... I get my hands slapped every time we suit up for a roam.

What you said is spot on. We need a complete solution -- I feel the DEV's are working on this, the game is still young, and so this discussion should be delayed for future suggestions after we see how the next couple of months play out.

If people are not willing to stick around and keep an active sub during that they're only hurting themselves, but it's their choice... gotta love time based progression games smile

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • M2S
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Mechs should not receive more speed but should get more armour. Their damage is more than enough and is able to kill smaller targets with ease if the person knows what they're doing.

Smaller targets should not get a damage bonus against larger targets and that STILL seems to be in the game (When your hit dispersion is smaller than the targets surface size). I could be wrong and would like Zoom to confirm that the bonus is LONG gone.

Zenith is the perfect Demob platform once your wear have pinned something they're free to pin another target once a Zenith gets in range. smile

The Game
  • CIR
  • Banned
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Dont understand the point... Mech roams are very viable.

Its not about "crank out 100 mechs/h.mechs and iwin primary button". It would dumb the game down to the point where lemmings dont have to learn anything, just T for auto-follow, click as many names as possible, and press space once in a while.

Combined arms ftw. All bots should be equally useful in their specific roles, and then leave it to the player to mix/match what force/style they want to adopt.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice
  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Redline wrote:

That would reflect the differences in proper way. ATM mechs or heavies are more like Baby Huey - except that he is much more powerful then mechs/heavies.

May I introduce you to the REAL Baby Huey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27iGiuA … re=related

"Rise like lions after slumber in unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth, like dew
Which in sleep had fall'n on you:
Ye are many - they are few."

93 Reply by Redline (edited by Redline 2011-02-11 22:51:54)

  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I agree Glimpse - funny thing is, i know this - it needs time, game is young, things went smoothe, QA is good - good odds overall - i tell this others and yet i find myself in the same situation. I think ill come up with some papers just for fun.

edit: yes Strad, i stumbeled over him tongue

  • AXE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Annihilator wrote:

don fall back to the trailer of the game...

its showing mechs fighting each others - the mechs your complaining about - and i bet none of those had a lwf fitted for that movie.
Nothing about the equipment/power has changed since the trailer vid was recorded.

and if your insisting on your definition of "what peaple expect of mechas" - then where is my sword, and where is my big-breasted avatar? the term "mecha" comes from japanese mecha-animes/mangas and was adapted into anything that has to do with human controlled mechanical units.

and if speed is your only concern - Kains are damn fast!

um yeah I would have to agree with this one lol. Im pretty sure a Kain with Nav 10, Prec 10 using even standard em guns would have no problem taking down any ew that cant jamm. Hit disperision is 6 and that at 50% hit ratio it doesnt take much on light bots etc. Now being in a heavy mech, thats 6 guns now not 4. Everything seems to be running fine IMO. And the game is new for ***, give it time, let people get the skills up and then see what differences it makes......not to throw this out there but its not always the game but who is piloting the ship...skills, mods, weapons, etc that does come into play when pvping lol, and as always skills take a big part, there is a difference between advanced robot lvl 10 and lvl 5....

And on a key note to why people think they are end game in a heavy mech...wtf you get that, just because you can pilot a HM doesnt mean you can run it good.

  • GG
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

I still don't see how mechs are not useful in day to day pvp, all objectives and everything else aside.  If you want to fight in your mech there is absolutely nothing stopping you other than the fact you're more likely to have to stand and fight if a bigger force is faster than you.

If a light/ewar roam hits you and you undock mechs, they can't do anything if you hold the line, period.  If they have assault or mech backup of their own, well then all of this is moot.

The common problem I see is defenders want to defend with just 1 bot type and expect to be able to kill a fast ewar group.  It's pretty simple, you need speed to catch speed, otherwise you need to be content to just drive them off at your perimeter.  Does that mean ALL of you are forced to drive "ugly spider bots"? No.  But a few of you do, that's what is intended, for you to field different bots for different roles.

Invade hokk with a fast ewar group and give me 3 fast tacklers and a few mechs on the defense.  Dead intruders in minutes and we will have used mechs.

  • AXE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

GLiMPSE wrote:
Redline wrote:

Sure, making mechs faster doesnt make sense.

@ Wraith - i meant open pvp as in beta roamings.

The thing is - none of all the ideas will work isolated - a change that now may not appear reasonable might do so if other things get implemented. Thats the problem on all of this. Only a whole concept can suceed.

My concern on this topic simply is the variety of bots actually being used, but overall - well - we need more sand!

I agree, I want to stomp around in my Gropho as bad as the next guy... trust me... I get my hands slapped every time we suit up for a roam.

What you said is spot on. We need a complete solution -- I feel the DEV's are working on this, the game is still young, and so this discussion should be delayed for future suggestions after we see how the next couple of months play out.

If people are not willing to stick around and keep an active sub during that they're only hurting themselves, but it's their choice... gotta love time based progression games smile

Im with ya. This type of game will def weed out the ones that will know how to play the game and the ones that quite cause they want everything right away.....And even after reading all of Glimpses off topic replys and knifing post lol its just another reason for me to stick around and wait for solutions and the "work in progress" this game will go through. Until then I will continue to watch the general public of around 80-100 people when Im on grow to 2-300 people during the times im not playing...Give the game a chance and stop eating this =====D   and do this instead    smile

  • DEV
  • Developer
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Alexander: that bonus is still in place, although its effects only come into play when a very small and a very large robot meet as far as I know. So in cases where the small one should be stomped to death anyway with or without that bonus.

  • CIR
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

DEV Zoom wrote:

Alexander: that bonus is still in place, although its effects only come into play when a very small and a very large robot meet as far as I know. So in cases where the small one should be stomped to death anyway with or without that bonus.

Curious, why would having a smaller hit dispersion then the hit size provide more damage?

In my mind, and real world application, once hit dispersion and bot size are = damage should be at 100% and should not go above this as the hit dispersion size gets smaller then the bots size. That's like saying... my bullets will be hitting you more than 100% of the time.

Please correct me if I am mislead.

GLiMPSE™'s CoolPoints™ Leaderboard
  • AXE
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

GLiMPSE wrote:
DEV Zoom wrote:

Alexander: that bonus is still in place, although its effects only come into play when a very small and a very large robot meet as far as I know. So in cases where the small one should be stomped to death anyway with or without that bonus.

Curious, why would having a smaller hit dispersion then the hit size provide more damage?

In my mind, and real world application, once hit dispersion and bot size are = damage should be at 100% and should not go above this as the hit dispersion size gets smaller then the bots size. That's like saying... my bullets will be hitting you more than 100% of the time.

Please correct me if I am mislead.


...its his reason for saying they havent changed the multiplier for the damage lol....its in the works. Then again Id have to agree Id rather get hit in the balls with a cannonball and just not feel anything vs a small rock that would bring me to my knees in agony as I face planted onto the ground.

  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Root Issue: INCENTIVES TO PLAY, INCENTIVES TO FIGHT

Maybe small weapons on larger targets should have better critical chance because of better targeting of "vital" areas, and this higher critical chance is converted to extra damage.