468 replies to this topic

[Syllogy]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Epic fail:

Thinking that posting a snarky picture that has no content in it actually addressing the issue at hand is a proof of failure.

[Pht]

It gets better...

Now repetition stands in for Valid proof.

*wonders what's next.*

[Syllogy]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

*wonders what's next.*

[CloaknDagger]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Actually, you can shoot while jumping in the canon.

You take a +3 for doing so.

That's the penalty for shooting on the same turn as a jump. But, since you jump instead of moving, and shooting at a walk is +1 and shooting at a run is +2, +3 isn't all that big of a deal by itself.

That's why I think the +3 is for AFTER you land.

[Pht]

CloaknDagger, on 01 April 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

That's the penalty for shooting on the same turn as a jump. But, since you jump instead of moving, and shooting at a walk is +1 and shooting at a run is +2, +3 isn't all that big of a deal by itself.

That's why I think the +3 is for AFTER you land.

The TT is ambiguous on this by design; because they haven't added in mixed movement... though I might point out the opportunity fire allows you to shoot in any point during the turn; even while jumping.

If memory serves, it adds another + modifier, and I presume this would stack with the +3, because jumping is an unstable movement mode.

Ok, syllogy.

Why do you ask me if I "am a wizard?"

[blinkin]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

The TT is ambiguous on this by design; because they haven't added in mixed movement... though I might point out the opportunity fire allows you to shoot in any point during the turn; even while jumping.

If memory serves, it adds another + modifier, and I presume this would stack with the +3, because jumping is an unstable movement mode.

Ok, syllogy.

Why do you ask me if I "am a wizard?"

i think most of us have given up trying to use logic on you. you are very clearly immune.

[Syllogy]

[Karl Streiger]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

If memory serves, it adds another + modifier, and I presume this would stack with the +3, because jumping is an unstable movement mode.

While i never used opportunity fire...because it is a "broken" design too... there was indeed a +2 additional bonus. But when I can remember Solaris IV rules...with there 2.5sec rounds the jump was spitted into different stages...so when jumping the full 150m of a Shadow Hawk...you could choose to make 4 mini jumps - like written in some novels or you say jump all the time and beeing midair at the end of round 1,2 and 3. There was allways the +3 to hit modificator.

Afar from hit modificators. A BattleMech is hardly a aerodyn design - so jumping should not be like flying in space...it have to be more shaking. However I'm pretty sure that JJs are far from finished - and i would say they are the least concern.

@hit zones in general
while even the last of us should accept that you can not take base numbers from tt and squeze it into a FPS.
but that is exactly what happend - but instead of understanding the figures they were just copied.

@argument with former MW games.
So the repeating of game mechanics that have proven to have some serious issues in multi player games results in a good game design.
What i didn't get is the argument of MW2 ...and a dire wolf killing enemys with one shot? Because it was possible it means it should be possible again?
Missiles in MW 2 were most powerfull. Missiles in MW 3 were powerfull but as far as i can remember you could doge them but pulse laser were the worst killers. Missiles in MW 4 aggaing quiete powerful.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 01 April 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Missiles in MW 4 aggaing quiete powerful.

you pulled too many Gs with your verbal manuevering. you shouldn't do that without the aid of an oxygen feed and a G suit.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 01 April 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

you pulled too many Gs with your verbal manuevering. you shouldn't do that without the aid of an oxygen feed and a G suit.

only because i was remembering the sharp 180° turns of MW4 missiles...and thought what would have been when they were Grot-Bombs

[CloaknDagger]

Karl Streiger, on 01 April 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

@argument with former MW games.
So the repeating of game mechanics that have proven to have some serious issues in multi player games results in a good game design.
What i didn't get is the argument of MW2 ...and a dire wolf killing enemys with one shot? Because it was possible it means it should be possible again?
Missiles in MW 2 were most powerfull. Missiles in MW 3 were powerfull but as far as i can remember you could doge them but pulse laser were the worst killers. Missiles in MW 4 aggaing quiete powerful.

Indeed, in most cases it should not be possible.

It's because of bad game design that they kept the 10 second reloads.

If everything had a 5 second reload, you could expect it to do half the damage, thus not getting one shot kills.

Missiles are also the most iffy between games. They're usually represented as useless or overpowered.

Both of those things have nothing to do with canon and everything to do with the game developers.

[Syllogy]

[Karl Streiger]

So posting images is no violation of the code of conduct...interesting have to keep that in mind...when i start a flame for the next time.

Found one -

Edited by Karl Streiger, 02 April 2013 - 05:48 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Adding ANY skill modifier *BETWEEN* the pilot and the battlemech where We, at our computers, can control "our mechs" in exactly the same way and with the same capabilities as the pilots in the fictional lore ...

IS BAD.

If we can control it from our computers in the same way that the Mech's pilot can, we should be allowed to control it.

This is implied by the very name of the series - this is a game series about "what would it be like to pilot a BTU battlemech."

The *only* to-hit modifiers that should be used are those that relate to how well a 'Mech can handle it's weapons in relation to the various conditions it's encountering when the pilot decides to make a shot; and how those weapons themselves perform.




He's gotten it wrong. The Pilot Skill Rolls (PSR's) ... DO NOT BELONG in an MW video game.

All of the to-hit modifiers I have listed here: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/ are for the Mech and it's weapons.

I suppose this is an easy mistake to make, if one isn't very familiar with the TT combat system.



... and what about, "OMG, it's not like the stuff in the TT that rocks and would convert over easily and would result in awesome gameplay?"

... and "If you make a claim, you ought to be willing to back it up... and define the ambiguous words you use?"



Actually, you can shoot while jumping in the canon.

You take a +3 for doing so.

This question was asked by
Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:
If slapping a modifier on a pilot is so easy, what is my modifier vs. yours?

I provided a way to abstract TT gunnery onto real world gunnery. that way Noobs who can't hit an atlas at point blank could be considered green pilots, most normal, some veterans, others elite. No one was suggesting i hope, that it be implemented to some how balance anything. it was a demonstration that TT rules can be abstracted onto real populations.



"
... and what about, "OMG, it's not like the stuff in the TT that rocks and would convert over easily and would result in awesome gameplay?"

... and "If you make a claim, you ought to be willing to back it up... and define the ambiguous words you use?"
"

First part... not every thing in TT that works well and makes for a great TT experience, would translate into awesome game play for a FPS. strict adherence to TT is not a good idea.

Second part.... please list any claims that need backing up and any words you find ambiguous. I will attempt to expand on my meaning for greater clarity.

Piloting skill roles have effectively been removed form the game for good reason. But it left a hole in game balance, specifically in the heat table aspect of heat management. I cant see a useful translation for MWO.

Gunnery skill roles have been abstracted into player skill. This again leaves a hole in game balance. One that is currently filled by double armor. but adds in the ability to utilize convergence with little to no penalty. a huge flaw in my opinion.

[CloaknDagger]

I don't understand why he's acting as if players having different gunnery stats is a bad thing.

EVERY GAME HAS GOOD AND BAD PLAYERS.

[Karl Streiger]

CloaknDagger, on 02 April 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

I don't understand why he's acting as if players having different gunnery stats is a bad thing.

EVERY GAME HAS GOOD AND BAD PLAYERS.

Because shooting is OP.... and that what they call skill...is OP too.

To call it skill means to call this a good joke:
How many cucumbers are in the glas? No - yoghurt has no fishbones.

Back to topic...
the difference between the different aim abilitys of different levels of players is indeed a problem.
That have to be locked with weapon balance.
The difference between a green TT pilot(GTT) and a elite TT pilot (ETT) is serious but i believe it is more serious in MWO (GMW, EMW)

A GTT will have problems to hit any moving target with SSRM - GMW will have same problems in MWO...but he will hit from time to time....lets take a look ETT...will have some issues to hit a fast moving targets with SSRM... the same inMWO...i believe that the difference of GTT and ETT towards GMW and EMW is even in TT in comparison with MWO.

But now what about Gauss Rifles...the only difference beween an GTT or the ETT is that the ETT will hit more often. With additional rules...like aiming high etc...the to hit probability of the GTT and the ETT to hit a spot selected target with better chance is even. But take a look to MWO....the GMW will have some serious issues to hit a target...while the EMW can hit a target into the target location he want to hit - with most of his shots.

A good example may be some experience i did during closed beta...was during mid september...me and a mate...where on forest colony (played for 1 month now) a column of enemy mechs approached....after 20secs...4 of them were dead...killed by fast an accurate head shots. Later in early october i encountered three mechs on river city...Atlas, Catapult, Awesome. again a column ...so that one mech was blocking the shots of his mates...I killed them single handed....again with head shots.

Now they have done some things...or the lack of training made it more difficult...but its not that easy to take a mech with a head shot.

So lets say the difference between a EMW and a GMW is the same as it would be when you use the old targeting computer and Clan large pulse laser rules on a Warhawk UK with a top ace pilot an 0 gunnery skill vs a GTT.
That means you can target a hit location...and hit that location nearly automatically - same as it is actual in MWO.

So...how to fix that? My first idea was to improve the armor at Mechs location based on the "real" to hit probability...means for a Catapract or Atlas Side Torso...quadrupple of normal armor...but that will make it nearly impossible for green pilots to deal damage.

Best idea is to split between rookies and competive players....what ELO should have done....but i don't believe that it works.
So what? Effectivly you have to make green pilots better and elite pilot worser....

Although a reduction of damage per shot could help too. Lets assert that a elite pilot can deal 30dmg with 4 shots of a PPC...
with reduction damage per hit (lets say...we reduce it towards 5...he will need 8 shots. Same with a elite pilot...that hit a target with 1 out of 4 shots....while mathematically there is hardly a change...it will still means that in the end...the rookie pilot will have hit the target more often...maybe dealing 25% more damage.

So yes lets reduce the damage of weapons. Although i have to admit that the AC reduction should be done carefully.
I don't think that it is a really good idea to give the AC 5 a rof of 0.5shots per second with 1 damage each....although it would feel more like cannon...because you will have 5 shot magazines and 30 magazines per ton....maybe it could work. Maybe you have to change the DPS still a little bit...what i figured out was that the AC 2 works really good as AC 3...with a direct hit a AC 4.
The same with AC 5 -> AC 7 or direct hit as AC 8. The AC 10 how ever was problem in TT...to make it a AC 12 makes the weapon to powerfull...so we changed that the direct hit will give the AC 10 an 2dmg boost...a head shot however was never a direct hit

[Tombstoner]

you described MWO player skill level in TT rules. that's going to make some people mad.

I think PGI missed an opportunity to make some money here by completely substituting pilot gunnery skill for
player skill ( boating = skill BTW). but i also think its a direct design choice to not look like they are copping world of tanks. not sure why since WOT is making money and MWO would eat into some of that player base. MWO could have had a skill grind for pilots or pay money for a green, normal, veteran, elite pilot. quality of life not pay to win situation.

Head shots do take some skill. but really its all about the target standing still and boating PPC's, AC's, gause not lasers.

ELO is the best thing to happen to this game in a long time.

Tweaking weapon and damage stats is not going to be suficant for long term game balance, remember once clan tech hits. everything changes for the worse. matches will so much shorter with so much more damage being delivered.

Sadly it really doesn't matter what we think on this topic. PGI is set to leave BETA and unless the entire community is up in arms over something like ECM and cool shots noting will change. The things that concern me are fixed and its why this game is becoming MW4O.

In-case that last sentence is ambiguous. If i remember correctly Mech warrior 4 multi player had pin point accuracy and it sucked. With weapon convergence the same game imbalances found in MW4 are overlay-ed on to MWO. You died to fast. Some counter arguments are learn to play noob and bring a friend its a team based game.

What i'm after is a great PUG experience. That's what i consider the majority of if not all first player experience with any game.
Its by yourself. you get hooked and suck your friends in. As it is i think it sucks and why a new trial mech is being designed.
stock mechs are bad boats. boating is the name of the game. get in your alpha and hide behind a rock to cool off. That is not Mech warrior.

Edited by Tombstoner, 03 April 2013 - 05:12 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Tombstoner, on 03 April 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Sadly it really doesn't matter what we think on this topic. PGI is set to leave BETA and unless the entire community is up in arms over something like ECM and cool shots noting will change. The things that concern me are fixed and its why this game is becoming MW4O.

In-case that last sentence is ambiguous. If i remember correctly Mech warrior 4 multi player had pin point accuracy and it sucked. With weapon convergence the same game imbalances found in MW4 are overlay-ed on to MWO. You died to fast. Some counter arguments are learn to play noob and bring a friend its a team based game.

Nothing to add...what a mess...

Edited by Karl Streiger, 03 April 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 01 April 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

i think most of us have given up trying to use logic on you. you are very clearly immune.

I'm the one immune to logic?

What do you call this:

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Asking someone

*what* parts of the TT are "broken" and "won't work"

is not

"asking someone to prove the imperfection of the TT," ...

... ?

Do you really expect us to accept your conclusion that you have been operating on, that "asking what parts of something are broken" is the SAME THING as "asking someone to prove the imperfection of the tt?"

You can not have gotten your basic conclusion here from the text of my post - you had to add it with no justifcation from my posts.

Yet you feel safe accusing me of being a "moron" and "Immune to logic" when virtually your entire argument with me has been based upon a "moronic" and illogical conclusion you falsely inferred from my posts... when all you had to do was ask what I meant BEFORE you turned on the all-screaming caps button on your flamethrower.

Edited by Pht, 03 April 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Pht]

Karl Streiger, on 01 April 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

While i never used opportunity fire...because it is a "broken" design too...

Broken how?

(expects that some people will presume that my asking this question, i'm actually having to assume the TT can't possibly be broken).

Quote

there was indeed a +2 additional bonus. But when I can remember Solaris IV rules...with there 2.5sec rounds the jump was spitted into different stages...so when jumping the full 150m of a Shadow Hawk...you could choose to make 4 mini jumps - like written in some novels or you say jump all the time and beeing midair at the end of round 1,2 and 3. There was allways the +3 to hit modificator.

AFAIK the solaris box-set has never served as a baseline for the lore... it seems to me to have been an experiment more than anything else, sort of like the unbound sourcebook.

Anyways, looked over the opportunity fire/ OF on the move stuff - and they do indeed add 3 to the number you need to roll if you fire while jumping.

Quote

@hit zones in general
while even the last of us should accept that you can not take base numbers from tt and squeze it into a FPS.

MW is not an FPS, unless by FPS you just mean by it only that things in the game get shot at.

Beyond that, yes, it's entirely possible to take the base numbers from the TT, as long as you take the combat mechanic they were designed to work with.

Edited by Pht, 03 April 2013 - 10:42 AM.