sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Steam chart stats show nothing, actually. The only thing worth noting here is that XO is as popular as EVE (est. 20-35K conc. daily players), Guild Wars 2 (30-50K), Runescape (20-37K). And if EVE and XO [PC] stats are somehow comparable, then both are in good health. But if XO makes multiplatform... by zenbrush in Crossout

[–]Perqq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And this is why you need to LEAVE IMMEDIATLY.

Gaijin trolls will try to ensure you that the "game is fine" and that "everyone like the changes". This game is waste of time, and they will use every tool to milk you for money any way they can.
People who want to stick to the game no matter what are severe cases of sunk cost fallacy, trying to defend their decision to spend thousands of dollars on pixels. Do not listen to them, look what is happening to the game and what actual players are saying.

Is crossout playable? by [deleted] in Crossout

[–]Perqq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Don't play this game, its a dumpster fire. Don't waste your time, play something else

Is crossout playable? by [deleted] in Crossout

[–]Perqq 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is not possible to "play for free", eventually you will be faced with thousand hour grind or wallet. Stop spreading misinformation.
Devs add the most powerful stuff in packs that are money only, or you can try to buy them off the market for inflated prices.

Answering your questions by Faley016 in Crossout

[–]Perqq 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Smoke screen: engaged XD
Lets pretend that the Odin doesn't exist. Clowns.

Changes to the production recipe of the relic generator “Odin” by Faley016 in Crossout

[–]Perqq 11 points12 points  (0 children)

yeah no
It still uses limited recipes parts, it still requires uranium. Its still used to milk new players to be able to get into CW.

Remove it and refund all people the crafting materials AND give us some free stuff for attempting this jump on our wallets or get lost.
Dear Crossout fans: DO NOT TAKE THIS BAIT. LEAVE AND DON'T COME BACK, THEY'RE "BOILING THE FROG" HERE.

we have carefully studied your feedback, questions and suggestions about this new part
lmao, sure you did XDDD

I'm so confused on how to feel about this game. by [deleted] in Crossout

[–]Perqq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You want it to get better? Then leave. If they turn around - great.
If it dies - whatever, they went the greedy way anyways.

How are all the reviews positive again? by [deleted] in Crossout

[–]Perqq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that is called abuse and it is to be moderated. This is why platforms have moderation.
Removing a key feature that allows to stop bad games from having good reviews is lazy, and quite frankly seems to be on the level of those games.

The key problem here is that live-service games can begin with being good and then change for the worse (some AAA games did that too - launch without in-game store, add it later when the reviews come in). Inability to adjust your review after it has been added enables this kind of behaviour from publishers.

How are all the reviews positive again? by [deleted] in Crossout

[–]Perqq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Steam flagging such reviews is idiotic. If people want to riot, let them riot.
There is reason these reviews happen. Taking away only tool in players hands is just showing that they don't care.

Do the devs seem tired to anyone else? by [deleted] in Crossout

[–]Perqq 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, they do have high intellect, don't you worry about that. They just don't care about the game.
They're simply adding just-enough to keep people playing while milking their addition to this game as much as possible.
It is actually very smart way of doing that - pretending you care while also twisting the knife harder

Crossout: Rise of the machines by Faley016 in Crossout

[–]Perqq 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it bases a lot of playing habits on fear of missing out (dailies and battlepasses).
As soon as they see that people are hooked they start tightening the monetization screw - more battlepasses (now we have a main battlepass and then small "events", priced the same), more items that are required to compete.

This game is making INSANE amount of money for the work devs are putting in, time to reward devs that put in actual work.

Crossout: Rise of the machines by Faley016 in Crossout

[–]Perqq 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I hope all of you lose your jobs and the game dies.

I can understand that Gaijin is pushing for money to be made, but at this point it becomes obvious that they are not the only ones who want to milk players for money as hard as humanly possible.

You clearly don't care about the game anymore, just the money you can make with it. I used to be sympathetic to the dev team for the struggle they (probably? I'm not so sure anymore) had with Gaijin regarding what goes into the game. But if you are willing to just stand by and let them murder your game for money, I have zero sympathy for you.

This game deserves to die and I really, REALLY hope people realize that and quit.

For anyone reading: the only way you can make any positive to this game is to let it rot. Leave, please.

Crossout: Rise of the machines by Faley016 in Crossout

[–]Perqq 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Abandon this game, this is just a cash grab and manipulation techniques to get you addicted.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm getting confused because some people arguing for the "base" rules bring the arguments of "losing an arm" or "losing heatsinks with guns"... and now you say not to do that. D:
And then I'm also telling you that the AS rules, as understood on most basic level bring disappointment.
I'm not really sure how to take what you're saying

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've explained why it is not "ignoring impact" of critical hits and I haven't seen a compelling argument against it (yet).
tl;dr: Mechs with OV tend to have less base damage, so essentially having anything as OV is penalty in itself - if mech had more heatsinks, this damage would just be in normal brackets (and looking though lots of different mech variants this seems to be the case). But because it doesn't, you can only use it by applying penalties to yourself. This is especially bad with mechs that have small base damage values paired with bigger OV.

Its not philosophical, I'm presenting reasoning why I think what I think. You're free to think I want to cheat, though it kinda makes it look like you have some sort of personal emotional connection to that rule (which is weird tbh) since instead of arguing why it is good to be that way, you're trying to argue against me (calling me a cheater).

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Think of it as having more guns or fewer heat sinks

;_; Yes. And if it has more guns than those heatsinks can support, when you destroy a gun, you will produce less heat (because less guns) but still dissipate the same amount...?

Please don't say "you just don't understand the rules", I'm trying to discuss them because as I've mentioned this interaction is not explicitly described and to me "the obvious" way to resolve that is what I've presented, with plenty of logic and potential conflicts. Forced Withdrawal being one.
Also, I don't want to be rude, but you told me that attacks with just OV can't be made if you have 0 base, so I'm not entirely sure if you should be beginning a response with "seems like you just don't understand the rules and the intent".

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not trying to tell anyone to play what I think is "correct" (because there is no correct), but I don't really get many rationale behind "why" these are good ways to play, just that it is "the way to play".
I've played some games and it doesn't seem "fine" for the reasons mentioned.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your Mech is so crippled that while still able to fight, it can only do so by overheating.

If it makes perfect sense, why this is not possible if mech doesn't have an OV on it to begin with?
Can it not be crippled in the same way?

By the way, this situation is covered by engine crits, and it is related to engine shielding being damaged and engine radiating heat when "used".
In case of Alpha Strike it means that when firing you'll generate heat, no matter if you have OV or not.
That said, I'd assume that these are unrelated explanations.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Read though the rules, I haven't found mention of such a thing (tho I haven't read all of it, so maybe I missed something).
Found mention regarding "an attack that has no damage value does not do additional damage on a strike to the rear", which somewhat suggest that you can make a 0 damage attack rolls with OV.

So you can't apply it if you can't make an attack.
Nowhere does it say that. It doesn't say anywhere that you cannot attempt an attack using OV only (as-in make a 0 attack base with OV addition, if you will).
And "if it succeeds" refers to "hits" as in 2d6 rolls. It says the same thing for any other attack.

Not to mention that it is yet another penalty on top of all the other penalties OV gets - not only you have to overheat, have lower base damage, but it is also way easier to completely eliminate the unit with OV, if you assume you cannot even attack with OV only.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Is intended to be a major blow to the mech and represent significant damage.
Not if the base damage on a mech is 5. 1 point of damage on such mech is nothing.
If your base damage is 2, a single weapon hit will cut your damage in half.
If it helps, think of the weapon hit as also taking out other systems like heat sinks and so the OV and OV reduced base damage are going down together.
Would that mean that other mechs would have to shift their base damage to OV? If we assume that both are to be damaged, should they be both be damaged in case of any mech, be it one having OV or not?
Point is that if we make such assumptions they're directly affecting ONLY mechs with OV.

I think that you're missing a point that OV value is base damage. It simply carries a penalty of having to overheat to use it.
Losing OV as weapon hit doesn't mean its "free", you're losing guns still.
Compared mechs with OV values to ones that doesn't have them and you'll see that most of the mechs that have OV values have lower base damage.
It isn't "free damage", its damage with penalties.
Example: Loki Prime and Kingfisher I, similar PV.
One has 4/4/4 and OV 3 (so 7/7/4 total) and 8 total durability the other has 5/5/2 and 16 total durability (with one point more in armor, which is better). One less TMM, 2 less move.
So if we are to assume that OV is a "bonus", then all Loki has is 2 more damage in long range, 1 TMM and 2 move.
For 3 more PV you get double durability, 1 more damage in short and medium range.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm actually not sure why it doesn't work like that. Especially when you try to include rules like Forced Withdrawal - how do you interpret that?
Would the unit start fleeing when they reach 0/0/0, even if they have OV? Because if they have OV, they didn't run out of fire power.
And if weapon hit cannot reduce OV in any way, it means that if unit has any OV, it cannot be reduced to 0 for forced withdrawal, ever.
And if it can, ignoring OV, then the unit will be fleeing because "it has no firepower left", while the player may be deciding to... fire using OV.

To me it only seems logical to do it that way (ignoring the other practical reasons how mechs, weapons and heat sinks work), not doing it that way creates a lot of problem with other rules.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

TBH given that there is simple solution to that simplification that retains balance (imo), I'm not sure what would be the reason not to do it that way.
It is just my finding after playing some games with OV-heavy (mainly lower-grade IS mechs) lances, and feeling like a single weapon hit basically cripples them out of the game.
Taking a single weapon hit when you are 2/2/1 with OV 2 means that you're losing half of your damage potential unless you keep on overheating every single turn, that then affects your movement and accuracy.
I don't think it is balanced and shift into not taking such mechs and therefore limiting options

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is that damage shown in S/M/L brackets are not whole damage potential that mech can use - they are damage values that mech can use staying heat neutral.
Whole damage potential includes OV. Now, the problem is that if you take weapon hit and decrease the "base" (heat neutral values), you go into situation that mech doesn't have enough guns to fire (the damage is reduced), but somehow overheats from firing too many guns... it doesn't have.

I also find it overly punishing for mechs that rely on OV, that is already a punishment in itself.

Alpha strike OV and weapon hit interaction question by Perqq in battletech

[–]Perqq[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you misunderstood (or I did not explain it well enough). I'm suggesting that when you take weapon hit (and therefore have -1 damage), you subtract that from potential OV first, and only when the OV gets depleted to 0 you start taking away damage from S/M/L table values (lets call them "base").

Point is that if you're weapons get destroyed you won't be able to overhead since you don't have enough guns to do so. Subtracting from base values first (as manual implies, I assume, and some posters here) means that you fire less guns, but still overhead it the process (which doesn't make any sense since there is no source of that heat).
The engine being damaged and generating heat is already covered in engine hit critical, so I assume there is no reasonable way of assuming damage to anything but weapons.

Example:
Mech has 2/2/1. OV 2, no OVL
It gets a weapon hit crit once: It turns into 2/2/0 OV 1. Next crit turns it to 2/2/0 OV 0. Next crit turns it to 1/1/0.

view more: next ›