468 replies to this topic

[kiltymonroe]

Really guys why wouldn't you think Jordan Weisman and Bryan Nystul et. al. perfectly balanced your fancy graphical computer-y game in a book 30 years ago? It's so obvious that if you ignore all those past successful titles that bore the name MechWarrior and change all the rules to be like the ones in the source of the universe fluff (the definitive trait of perfect game balance that transcends genres) everything will hunky-dory!

[MustrumRidcully]

kiltymonroe, on 26 March 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Really guys why wouldn't you think Jordan Weisman and Bryan Nystul et. al. perfectly balanced your fancy graphical computer-y game in a book 30 years ago? It's so obvious that if you ignore all those past successful titles that bore the name MechWarrior and change all the rules to be like the ones in the source of the universe fluff (the definitive trait of perfect game balance that transcends genres) everything will hunky-dory!

I am okay with not trustig them, because they did fail in amny parts. Too bad that the other guys setting out to do it made things even worse than if they just kept closer to the table top mechanics...

[Tombstoner]

kiltymonroe, on 26 March 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Really guys why wouldn't you think Jordan Weisman and Bryan Nystul et. al. perfectly balanced your fancy graphical computer-y game in a book 30 years ago? It's so obvious that if you ignore all those past successful titles that bore the name MechWarrior and change all the rules to be like the ones in the source of the universe fluff (the definitive trait of perfect game balance that transcends genres) everything will hunky-dory!

I think this statement although a bit snarky illustrates a good point. PGI has the option of rebooting the MW franchise with an all new set of game stats and mechanics. That work for a FPS port of a TT game. unfortunately its current state is a hodge poge of some of this and this, but not that. Those little parts that's are missing are critical.

If your new to MW you cant see the issues former TT players are concerned about. If you played other MW computer games
we are walking a similar path. hence 6 ppc stalkers and pop tarts are increasing as a percentage of the player base.

[AndyHill]

I don't think any of the previous MW games (not much experience with LL) have had especially good balance / gameplay for competitive multiplayer gaming.

[Tombstoner]

AndyHill, on 26 March 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

I don't think any of the previous MW games (not much experience with LL) have had especially good balance / gameplay for competitive multiplayer gaming.

MW games have been for me good to great single player experience, but in Mulit Player without some form of nerf to linked fired weapons it just sucked.

6 ppc's hitting the same spot due to linked fire is face roll easy and requires less skill than 6 ppc's fires one at a time and having all of them hit the same spot. given the choice i see the player base wanting things face roll and thinks it's skill full play.

[Nightcrept]

Following BT and TT rules would be utterly ridiculous. It just does not translate to a fee flowing combat sim.

The more willing the devs are to create their own weapons and item the better.

Remember the game is over 30 years old or so and the tech the mechs use is displaying that antiquated ages imagination.

[Xerxys]

Nightcrept, on 26 March 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Following BT and TT rules would be utterly ridiculous. It just does not translate to a fee flowing combat sim.

The more willing the devs are to create their own weapons and item the better.

Remember the game is over 30 years old or so and the tech the mechs use is displaying that antiquated ages imagination.

Prove it. I've shown where PGI failed at implementation of TT rules. I've shown how they could have been made to work as have a dozen other people. I'm ******* tired of this lame *** argument. Everyone says it, but can't produce a bit of proof to support it. Meanwhile, a dozen or more people are showing mathematical values to back up how TT can apply. Will it run like other MW titles? Most likely not, but everything would be balance, the heat system and weapon systems in particular. The only thing that doesn't really translate is the movement, but the other things have now been changed to account for this.

Edit: The same mechs and tech that was used 30 years ago is exactly the same thing you're using now!

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Xerxys]

TT runs on a 10 second round. I'm not the mental midget that decided to cut it to a 3 second round. Something that really doesn't divide well from 10 seconds. They would have been smarter to drop it to 2 second rounds. As a 2 second round I would have effectively divided the 10 second round by a factor of 5. Here's where PGI failed and everyone with a working brain sees the issue. PGI left everything else having to do with firing a weapon as it was based off of a 10 second round. What they should have done, what I would have done is divide ALL weapon system damage and heat generation by a factor of five. At this point we have maintained the balance as well as increase the rate of fire(the action) and allowed for a "simulation". It's just like a mathematical equation... What you do on one side of the equals sign must be balanced on the other. PGI failed to do this. Instead they doubled the armor?

I could use a second method to come to the same conclusion. I would multiply armor and heat dissipation by a factor of five. The pace has increased significantly, but overall nothing has been lost. Everything is going to function on a 1:1 ratio with TT rules and designs. Are weapons designed for a 10 second round, but firing at 2 second intervals going to be overpowering? Highly unlikely, since the armor is now 5 times as thick. Am I going to overheat constantly? Not very likely, heat is dissipating 5 times faster as well now. Can I alpha strike a 6x ppc Stalker? Yes, if you want to go nova first shot.

When you increase the rate of fire and don't do a damned thing concerning weapon damage and heat generation you end up with the PGI heat machine that is MWO. PGI solution, increase heat capacity per HS??? To try to stop Alpha striking??? What PGI did does limit alpha striking, but they've allowed for massive front loaded damage and ******** setups like the 6x ppc stalker and the splatapult,

Now I want to know where and how exactly my implementation would be worse than what we have now. Can you come up with an argument? Were you able to read the posts from early 1st closed beta? This was a problem then, it's a problem now, and barring some magnificent genius on the part of PGI it's going to be a problem in the future. Clan mechs are going to completely destroy any semblance of balance you may feel right now. Unless PGI ganks clan tech like they did the DHSs.

I'm genuinely curious how my plan of a 1:1 TT layout is oh so wrong and won't work. Perhaps you don't understand how ratios work? I'll explain: If I have 5 plumbs in my right hand and 5 walnuts in my left the ratio of plumbs to walnuts is 1:1. Does this mean that they are equal? No, 5 plumbs do not equal 5 walnuts. This is the same thing as saying that taking a 1:1 ratio from TT specs and designs is not the same thing as turning the game into a 10 second based "simulation" game. Hopefully this helps clear things up for people who don't have a firm grasp of mathematics.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 08:37 AM.

[AndyHill]

Tombstoner, on 26 March 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

MW games have been for me good to great single player experience, but in Mulit Player without some form of nerf to linked fired weapons it just sucked.

6 ppc's hitting the same spot due to linked fire is face roll easy and requires less skill than 6 ppc's fires one at a time and having all of them hit the same spot. given the choice i see the player base wanting things face roll and thinks it's skill full play.

Yeah, to me that's the one single thing that needs to be taken care of first, before any kind of numbers can even be looked at.

Just an interesting note on designs that rely on pinpoint alpha damage:

- The Swayback
- The SplatCat
- The BoomCat
- The GaussCat
- The HexaPlasmaStalker
- The HexaLaserStalker
- The BoomJäger
- The GaussJäger
- Every Poptart ever

- Every clan design ever. No big deal, move along...

It's pretty much the who's who of the flawor of the month QQ list for the last six months. Pretty much the only thing missing is the LRM boat, ECM builds and the Streakapult.

Unless you want to take into account the fact that ECM, LRM and Streak implementations in MWO are not based on the TT equivalents either.

Edited by AndyHill, 26 March 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[kiltymonroe]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Prove it. I've shown where PGI failed at implementation of TT rules. I've shown how they could have been made to work as have a dozen other people. I've ******* tired of this lame *** argument. Everyone says it, but can't produce a bit of proof to support it. Meanwhile, a dozen or more people are showing mathematical values to back up how TT can apply. Will it run like other MW titles? Most likely not, but everything would be balance, the heat system and weapon systems in particular. The only thing that doesn't really translate is the movement, but the other things have now been changed to account for this.

Edit: The same mechs and tech that was used 30 years ago is exactly the same thing you're using now!

Spreadsheets aren't games (well, I guess TT kinda is) and you haven't shown anything more than any other armchair quarterback. You can swear up and down that you have the magic solution in your holy rulebook and you could fill a thimble with all it "proves."

[Xerxys]

kiltymonroe, on 26 March 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Spreadsheets aren't games (well, I guess TT kinda is) and you haven't shown anything more than any other armchair quarterback. You can swear up and down that you have the magic solution in your holy rulebook and you could fill a thimble with all it "proves."

The heat system is broken under PGI's influence. They've never tried a proper solution to the heat issue. Instead they've made mistake after mistake. How can I know this? It's been an ongoing issue since first closed beta! This system obviously does not work. PGI could have implemented the actual system and at least seen how it would go if done properly. Again, it goes to simple mathematics. You can't make a major change to one part of a system and expect balance. Spreadsheets aren't games, but they are used to make successful ones. I can't show anything unless PGI is at least willing to show the entire populace of their games that TT rules, properly implemented, don't work. Otherwise I only have what the alpha testers told the 1st beta group and I read as part of the 2nd beta group. PGI screwed up implementation. They tried to have a sim game on a 10 second round and it flopped. They increased rate of fire and nothing else. This was shown to be too powerful so they double the armor values on mechs. How is that proper implementation? If you bother to even look at the math with an open mind you can see how this would actually work. I was never a quarterback, I was a running back. Not the armchair kind, but in sports.

PGI has completely failed in its attempts, why not try something daring?

Edit: At least I'm showing some proof, even if only a thimble full. What proof did you bring to the argument? Your opinion? I have many of those and with lack of any tangible proof I try to keep them in check. I still haven't seen anyone with your typical argument provide any proof to the contrary. Everything that you and people like you bring forth is speculation and opinion. Not even a shred of evidence to contradict anything that's bringing any kind of actual proof, spreadsheet or otherwise.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[tenderloving]

I have no connection/nostalgia for the orginal ruleset of BT, but I can see that the strange hodgepodge of sticking to rule A while ignoring rule B that PGI has adopted has created a really weird game.

The problems this causes drives away new players: The trial mechs are overheating death traps. PGI's solution to this is to implement a 3rd person mode (wtf???)

It also creates a system where frontloading damage is ALWAYS the better choice. Mechs like the stock Awesome, which are supposed to create a constant barrage of PPC fire, are utterly useless. The Awesome is better off blasting all three PPCs and then scooting out of sight.

Edit:

I agree with the poster above me in that PGI seems to try a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" approach to "fixing" things. Every patch, massive bugs are discovered immediately even though they supposedly have internal testing. How long did the overly powerful splash damage exist before a player was able to prove it? Even incidents like Coolantgate show that they really don't think things through as much as you expect.

So if you are defending the current heat system, keep in mind that it was brought to you by the same process that brought you Coolantgate.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 March 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[Nightcrept]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

The heat system is broken under PGI's influence. They've never tried a proper solution to the heat issue. Instead they've made mistake after mistake. How can I know this? It's been an ongoing issue since first closed beta! This system obviously does not work. PGI could have implemented the actual system and at least seen how it would go if done properly. Again, it goes to simple mathematics. You can't make a major change to one part of a system and expect balance. Spreadsheets aren't games, but they are used to make successful ones. I can't show anything unless PGI is at least willing to show the entire populace of their games that TT rules, properly implemented, don't work. Otherwise I only have what the alpha testers told the 1st beta group and I read as part of the 2nd beta group. PGI screwed up implementation. They tried to have a sim game on a 10 second round and it flopped. They increased rate of fire and nothing else. This was shown to be too powerful so they double the armor values on mechs. How is that proper implementation? If you bother to even look at the math with an open mind you can see how this would actually work. I was never a quarterback, I was a running back. Not the armchair kind, but in sports.

PGI has completely failed in its attempts, why not try something daring?

They should do something daring. They should completely leave TT behind and forge their own game.


"Edit: The same mechs and tech that was used 30 years ago is exactly the same thing you're using now!"

Exactly. And they are lame. People have been seeing the same basic BT mechs for decades. It's not new and or even exciting. And the weapons and equipment are in many cases 1950's tech and or used to the point of lunacy in video games since the 80's.

[Xerxys]

Nightcrept, on 26 March 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

They should do something daring. They should completely leave TT behind and forge their own game.


"Edit: The same mechs and tech that was used 30 years ago is exactly the same thing you're using now!"

Exactly. And they are lame. People have been seeing the same basic BT mechs for decades. It's not new and or even exciting. And the weapons and equipment are in many cases 1950's tech and or used to the point of lunacy in video games since the 80's.

This is the the era of BT PGI decided to start at. I wouldn't truly object to this if they did something daring like start after the books, novels, lore left off. If you're going to use a game from a particular point in time within the already published works, then anything made to encompass that time period should be canon.

It's not lunacy if you're getting rid of builds that would self detonate and fixing a broken heat system. Not to mention that every time PGI decides to leave TT behind the system ends up completely boinked or balance is massively tipped one direction or the other.

Or they could have been truly daring and not piggy back off of an established name to create their very own game designed exactly how they want it and run exactly how they design it. Daring can be a double edge sword Ace, careful with it.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Nightcrept]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

This is the the era of BT PGI decided to start at. I wouldn't truly object to this if they did something daring like start after the books, novels, lore left off. If you're going to use a game from a particular point in time within the already published works, then anything made to encompass that time period should be stuck to as canon.

It's not lunacy if you're getting rid of builds that would self detonate and fixing a broken heat system. Not to mention that every time PGI decides to leave TT behind the system ends up completely boinked or balance is massively tipped one direction or the other.

Or they could have been truly daring and not piggy back off of an established name to create their very own game designed exactly how they want it and run exactly how they design it. Daring can be a double edge sword Ace, careful with it.

Your still going on about the heat and numbers. I could really care less about that.

From trying to get people to play this game I run into the age of the game concept long before the numbers become a issue.
For me personally the heat issue is insane. You can't play a game without overheating unless you stick to ballistics.
In that case i don't care how they fix it as long as it's fixed.

The concept of mechs is cool.

But the weapons and equipment are not very inspired.

My father was a BT fan and when I showed him this game his response was "isn't there anything new?".


Edit: It is painfully obvious that the people who created this game and its tech did not have military back rounds and or bothered to consult with military tacticians while creating the weapons and other systems.

Edited by Nightcrept, 26 March 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[Xerxys]

Nightcrept, on 26 March 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Your still going on about the heat and numbers. I could really care less about that.

From trying to get people to play this game I run into the age of the game concept long before the numbers become a issue.
For me personally the heat issue is insane. You can't play a game without overheating unless you stick to ballistics.
In that case i don't care how they fix it as long as it's fixed.

The concept of mechs is cool.

But the weapons and equipment are not very inspired.

My father was a BT fan and when I showed him this game his response was "isn't there anything new?".

I agree, which is where PGI could have started up after all the written works. They could create their own mechs, weapons, and rules and TT wouldn't amount to crap. It would have been daring and you probably would have found your inspiration. PGI decided on a time period within the already established works. This limited what they could and could not implement but kept them from having to be creative themselves. I've said elsewhere that choices have consequences and the consequence to choosing the era of BT that they did, PGI locked themselves into having to follow mech, tech and canon.

I'm not arguing that the game is lacking, I even agree that it's the heat issue that's tearing the game down. What I'm trying to do is explain why we are where we are concerning heat. How things got to this point and how PGI boinked the heat system and, by doing so, game balance as a whole. I wouldn't care if PGI created a whole new heat system, if it worked! Their design has horribly failed and I'm offering up an option that has, at least, some mathematical/spreadsheet proof that it has a high potential to work. Is PGI going to listen to me? Nope, they haven't since the 1st group of closed beta testers and they have continued to ignore the terrible heat problem. I feel that they have even compounded the problem by increasing heat cap per heat sink. This created an atmosphere where specs like the splatapult and 6x PPC Stalker are viable options.

I, and people like me, constantly get unfounded retorts that have nothing to back them. Am I still going on about numbers? YES! Since the entire game has them involved in every aspect that you do, from movement, to firing rate, weapon damage, aim(for projectile weapons), heat increase/dissipation/capacity, weight, etc.... Numbers are a huge part of the game and how it works, so yes they do need to be scrutinized.

Edit: I even agree with your edit!

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 10:03 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Exactly. every MW pc game has started with the TT rules set and for stand alone games it easier to balance game play and make it fun, but in the context of multilayer its a whole nother critter.

I have asked the deves for an ac-15 i got nothing. it fits in the weapon tree. I have asked for a ppc-5, an energy version of the ac-5.

New commers to BT dont care what it called or where it came from as long as the dakka dakkas present.
i think every TT payer wants a good FPS version of battle tech. and would be willing to accept some lore altering aspects for good game play and mech balance. cause lets face it some mechs are gimped because they where never designed to be boats, but to provide lots of flavor text in the early days of the BT franchise. i speak specifically of the atlas.

In TT one atlas can hold off 12 x 20 tone mechs. in MWO its a walking wound. sit simply cant live up to the flavor text, sure its got max armor but its a walking barn. noobs can hit it in the CT. Whats missing is a cone of fire for linked weapons, because without it your extra armor lets you live for one more alpha. What gets me is people think this is ok, some how good or desirable. add in the fact its hard points are crap it cant effectively boat direct damage weapons. so its vulnerable to better boats. unless it has ECM.... but that's a different issue that also clearly departed TT for parts unknown and god/PGI knows why.

[MustrumRidcully]

Nightcrept, on 26 March 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

They should do something daring. They should completely leave TT behind and forge their own game.

That could be nice, too. But do you think they'll be able to balance things any better if they have nothing to start with except weapon names?

If they can make a balanced game from a clean slate, do you think it would be that hard to make one from the Battletech core material.

"Okay, this mech has 3 PPCs and can fire them a lot. Let's find some stats how to make this mech be worh its name, but not broken!"

[Xerxys]

Tombstoner, on 26 March 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Exactly. every MW pc game has started with the TT rules set and for stand alone games it easier to balance game play and make it fun, but in the context of multilayer its a whole nother critter.

I have asked the deves for an ac-15 i got nothing. it fits in the weapon tree. I have asked for a ppc-5, an energy version of the ac-5.

New commers to BT dont care what it called or where it came from as long as the dakka dakkas present.
i think every TT payer wants a good FPS version of battle tech. and would be willing to accept some lore altering aspects for good game play and mech balance. cause lets face it some mechs are gimped because they where never designed to be boats, but to provide lots of flavor text in the early days of the BT franchise. i speak specifically of the atlas.

In TT one atlas can hold off 12 x 20 tone mechs. in MWO its a walking wound. sit simply cant live up to the flavor text, sure its got max armor but its a walking barn. noobs can hit it in the CT. Whats missing is a cone of fire for linked weapons, because without it your extra armor lets you live for one more alpha. What gets me is people think this is ok, some how good or desirable. add in the fact its hard points are crap it cant effectively boat direct damage weapons. so its vulnerable to better boats. unless it has ECM.... but that's a different issue that also clearly departed TT for parts unknown and god/PGI knows why.

I agree with this as well, but none of this fixes the heat issue. It's where I'm focused at the moment, and where a lot of the issues come from. Boating really shouldn't be happening, but it is. Why? Because with a heat cap of ~70 (now) v. 30 (TT) the whole method of unload 2-3 alphas of 6xSRM6 or 6xPPC is a viable option and play style. Not entirely sure of the SRM, but the PPC would generate enough heat for the build to go nova after one alpha by TT standards. TT rules prevent issues like this from even coming to light. If you fire your 6xSRM6 and immediately shut down, are you going to run that build? Up to you. Under the TT form of the game you wouldn't even be able to chain fire either of these builds. This is where TT has an edge. 30 years of continuous scrutiny to keep things in line and prevent the cheese builds that are rampant in the current incarnation of the game.

Edit: This is not a FPS. It's a first person combat vehicle simulation. The difference being that you're not personally standing there holding up a 7 ton PPC and aiming it to fire. You're controlling the war machine that is holding the weapon, and through sophisticated targeting computers, aiming and adjusting for convergence to target. This is the thing that people aren't fully grasping.

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

I agree with this as well, but none of this fixes the heat issue. It's where I'm focused at the moment, and where a lot of the issues come from. Boating really shouldn't be happening, but it is. Why? Because with a heat cap of ~70 (now) v. 30 (TT) the whole method of unload 2-3 alphas of 6xSRM6 or 6xPPC is a viable option and play style. Not entirely sure of the SRM, but the PPC would generate enough heat for the build to go nova after one alpha by TT standards. TT rules prevent issues like this from even coming to light. If you fire you 6xSRM6 and immediately shut down, are you going to run that build? Up to you. Under the current form of the game you wouldn't even be able to chain fire either of these builds. This is where TT has an edge. 30 years of continuous scrutiny to keep things in line and prevent the cheese builds that are rampant in the current incarnation of the game.

I wouldn't exaggerate the quality of Battletech's balance. AFAIK, most of the balancing was later done with Battle Value, with some success, but hardly perfect one.

I'd love someone to rewrite Battletech rules to be balanced from the get-go.