MAXes are out of control

Discussion in 'MAX' started by N4poleon, Mar 4, 2014.

  1. MongooseTwoFive

    I still think the entire argument is just absurd. "Any infantry class should be on equal footing with the max suit that costs resources, has limited mobility, and has no other special class abilities (revive, repair, blow up generators, cap point, hack terminals/turrets, fly, drop mines, etc...)."

    If you're by yourself, trying to engage a max head-on is about as logical as trying to stop a train with your face. Maxes are dedicated combat machines, and they cost resources, so of course head-on they're going to have the edge. You need either superior numbers or superior tactics.

    This video showed clever use of C4 to take down an entire max team. It works fine, I fear C4 fairies more than anything else when on my MAX. Well, that and a charging squad of decimator heavies.
    • Up x 1
  2. SkepticJerry

    You're joking right? C4, Anti-Vehicle Grenades and Decimators. No MAX problem. Chuck 3 AV Grenades into a room of MAX's and profit. You'll get their engineers too.
  3. ADUILO

    I think the TR and VS MAXes need a nerf and the NC MAX needs a buff.
  4. Verviedi

    How to kill MAXes:

    LA- C4
    HA- Rocket to the forehead
    Medic- Heal a HA
    Engi- Pour turret fire into it.
    MAX- Kill it with firepower.
    Infiltrator- Snipe the support.
  5. BITES

    FTFY, so many counters for a lot less (or nothing at all in some cases) resource investment .. the argument is long dead.
  6. Shiaari

    Yep, I think that about covers it. You did in fact say this game is about manpower efficiency, and you did in fact say that having more than 1 player (read 2 or more) being required to deal with a MAX makes it overpowered.

    Nope, not an imaginary Axehilt. That's definitely what you said, and your argument is flawed because this game is not about using manpower efficiently.

    Or are you now going to say you didn't say that?
  7. Axehilt


    Unfortunately for you, finding a miniscule, slightly mistaken comment I made in one post doesn't really help your argument much.

    The fact still stands that manpower efficiency is a very important factor to winning battles. Which is why it makes the game very shallow if one class is substantially more manpower efficient.

    I guess I don't understand why you'd want the game to persist in this shallower state. Do you dislike deep games that offer interesting loadout decisions? Or maybe you're another person fighting in favor of overpowered MAXes because you play MAXes a lot? (The other thread had a guy with over 50% of his total playtime in a MAX!)

    The game isn't fundamentally broken in this shallower state, but if it could be deeper why wouldn't we want that? Deep games keep players playing for years!
  8. Atis

    I dont mind max survivability, its low TTK of some max weapon what makes them broken. I wouldnt even mind if they were even fattier than now but had more of suppression fire style than current kill-on-sight.
    • Up x 1
  9. Shiaari


    Annnnd, the back pedal.

    The game's depth is a subjective question. We all appreciate your input, and we'll see how they rebalance MAXes eventually with the new resource system.
  10. Axehilt

    Eh, I have no problem admitting completely inconsequential mistakes. My argument is ironclad with logic and evidence. Yours is a flimsy restatement of the status quo. That tangent of the conversation is nothing more than a distraction. The reality still remains that manpower efficiency is very important, which means you're basically saying, "Ah-ha!!! You were very slightly wrong in this post of yours 15 posts ago! GOT YOU!"

    Forgive me if I golf clap.

    Sirlin's definition of depth goes, "A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries."

    Expert players is a key part of that definition, because it means we get to just decisively call Tic-Tac-Toe shallow, despite the fact that slower players are still working on mastering it.

    For the same reason, we can just decisively call overpowered MAXes shallow, because expert players know (through a combination of experience, MAX attributes, and player stat data) that MAXes being overpowered deprives the game of an entire set of deeper decisions that might happen.

    But if you want you can choose to be that Tic-Tac-Toe player who subjectively considers the game deep. Expert PS2 players will smile at you and pat you on the head.
  11. Jaedrik

    ********. Depth is an objective fact, that is, it is found in the nature of the thing in question.
  12. Shiaari


    I see, so what you're really trying to say is that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a shallow player.

    That's all you really had to say in the first place, and having said it we can now dismiss you.

    Now, I'm going to wait for you talk about stats. Go on, tell us all about that massive KDR you have, compared to my paltry 1.2, so that I can show everyone how much time you spend in a Mosquito, and how since playing since October of last year you've only been on the ground for 201 facility captures.

    You're nowhere near an expert.
  13. Axehilt

    Where do you get this stuff? A shallow person is something else entirely.

    A game is shallow if there is one overpowered option (tic-tac-toe) compared to a deeper game where many viable paths exist (chess.)

    A shallow person is different. I'm not going to call someone shallow just because they prefer tic-tac-toe to chess. I'm just going to question their skill and taste in games.

    I don't call people shallow for disagreeing. I might call them shallow if they seemed to intentionally distract from a main conversation with what appeared to be deliberate misunderstandings. But it wouldn't be because they disagreed.

    In PS2's case there is one class in indoor fights that beats everything. And like tic-tac-toe, you either play the one overpowered strategy for the tie, or you lose. (Unlike tic-tac-toe there are a lot of other factors determining overall victory, so overall PS2 remains deep -- but the class choice factor is shallow and should be improved.)

    I didn't even mention stats last post, so I have no clue where your tirade about stats came from. But hey if you want to bring it up:
    • Aggregate player stats are still the strongest objective evidence of my argument. MAX weapons solidly outperform infantry weapons. Additionally, every individual player's stats I looked up showed MAXes to be their best class by most or all of the core performance stats.
    • The other important stats are the attributes of MAXes themselves (hp/dmg/TTK), which shows us why the aggregate player stats look like they do, and provides a clear lever with which to balance them.
    As for facility caps, it appears you don't understand how that stat is tracked. Once a base is beat, I move on. This means when it flips I'm not there and don't get the paltry XP and don't get the cap credit. I'm too busy doing important things like clearing airspace and killing vehicles on the path towards the next base, which is (a) more helpful to my empire's success on a continent, (b) more profitable, and (c) more fun.

    What's wrong with killing things in a mosquito?

    If you want to pretend 3.4 k/d and 666 spm isn't an expert, I'm fine with that ("expert" is sort of an arbitrary label, even though I prefer "Top 10% of players" as the definition.)

    You (unfortunately) remind me of a great article The Death of Expertise. If someone has more experience at success than you -- and it's objectively proven on a website -- then why would you possibly just flat-out insult and belittle their skill? Worse, you do so in a way that makes you sound even less skilled (by mentioning facility caps as a stat.)

    Look, the fact is you're less skilled. That doesn't mean you can't have a valid opinion on balance. But you need to have logic or evidence backing that opinion (because you don't have expertise.) And you don't. But if you had logic or evidence backing what you said, I would listen.

    "Because status quo" is not a valid argument. You have to actually formulate why it's better for MAXes to be overpowered than balanced, given that I've pointed out pretty clearly why an overpowered class choice makes things shallower and less interesting.
  14. Parakeet

    I still don't think you have proven in any way that there IS a problem. You think maxes are op. Lots of others don't.......

    Wtf are you talking about. You seriously just pulled some numbers out your but. I can easily think of many examples that totally contradict your 1.0 random k/d stat.

    You keep calling maxes "overpowered" as if they are intended to be at the same level as infantry and are currently bugged or not balanced correctly. As far as I know they are supposed to be more powerful than infantry, you are simply unhappy with how much more powerful they are and want them to be nurfed.

    Guess you haven't let many platoons.

    Yeah like cod. Everything is balanced in that. No vehicles.... no big armor suits, no resources. All you have to worry about is being a faster twitch kid than the other guy.
  15. Parakeet

    This entire subject line is just talking in circles about nothing.



    But they are not an automatic I win class. You have yet to convince me of that, lots of people have pointed out counters to the max class in this thread, you have chosen to ignore them.

    The depth of the infantry gameplay will not be improved. It will be made shallower. You will not longer have the depth of the max class, and the resource management that comes with those fights. It will just be waves of free infantry spawning against each other. I don't see how waves of infantry just running into each other shooting and dieing has any more depth than having maxes mixed in with those infantry.

    Please give me some examples of this mysterious "depth" that will be created that will replace having an entire unit + resource management battles that go with it.
  16. Parakeet

    Maxes are only op if you are really really care about your k/d as a regular infantry unit. If you look at the battlefield from a top down view and throw your free infantry at maxes to kill them you would realize that maxes, while good, are not the god units you make them out to be. Infantry have a variety of very resource cheap options available to deal with them.
  17. Parakeet

    This guy has it right, infantry are free. The same 2 infantry could just kill a max, die, respawn FOR FREE, come back and kill another max. At that point you are costing the enemy huge resources and cooldown timers, while your maxes are free to rampage. This is where the entire resource battle comes into play. Killing off their maxes for a minimum of cost to your own side so you can gain the resource advantage and thus have STRONGER RESOURCE COSTING UNITS on the field. Resources don't matter my clubed left foot.
  18. Parakeet

    What imbalance? Maxes are supposed to be stronger than infantry. If the enemy has more maxes on the field than you then that means they have been more effective at draining your resources so your side can no longer pull maxes. They have OUTPLAYED YOU and have earned their advantage.
  19. Parakeet

    You killed a bunch of bad players with a unit that costs resources and they did not counter you nor have a resource costing unit. Of course you couldn't have done the same with the heavy assault. Its free. Max costs. Thats like me saying that I killed a bunch of infantry with my tank...... tanks are so op I couldn't have done that with my heavy assault...... WTF.
  20. VeryCoolMiller

    there are already counters to maxes:
    concussion grenade
    smoke
    rocket launcher
    c4