Actually my biggest gripes right now have to do with inconsistent DHS that are different inside and outside the engine, the free heat sinks you get with an engine that are mounted outside taking up weight (245 and below), and missiles being a bit too pin point accurate, need to spread a bit more.
6
So, You've Ignored Canon Stats. How's That Working Out For You?
Started by CloaknDagger, Mar 08 2013 05:09 PM
468 replies to this topic
#42
-
-
- Overlord
- 7,308 posts
Member
- LocationRTP, NC
Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:41 AM
Khobai, on 11 March 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:
Yes tripling the rate of fire made sense. Because no one wants to play a live-action game with 10 second cooldowns.
A while back some guy made a battletech game from Blender, and in it I think the fire rate was 10 seconds. You don't realize how annoyingly long 10 seconds can be until you try that...
Edited by CapperDeluxe, 11 March 2013 - 11:42 AM.
#43
-
-
- 515 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:01 PM
Sturmforge, on 11 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
Returning armor to its stock values then dividing weapon damage based on the TT 10 second turn would increase combat length. My math may be a bit off but it should be close to actual times.
Current AC-10 (2.5 second cooldown)
40 damage fired from 4 shots, 10 damage each shot, versus 40 armor, 7.5 seconds to deplete.
Current Large Laser (1 second beam, 3.25 second cooldown)
45 damage from 5 shots, 9 damage each shot, versus 40 armor, 17 seconds to deplete
My proposed system (Closer to TT values)
AC-10 (2.5 second cooldown)
20 damage fired from 8 shots, 2.5 damage each shot, 10 seconds versus 20 armor. 17.5 seconds to deplete.
Large Laser (1 second beam, 3.25 second cooldown)
21 damage from 7 shots, 3 damage each shot, versus 20 armor, 25.5 seconds to deplete
Missile examples
SRM-2
Fire 1 missile every 5 seconds for 2 damage each.
SRM-4
Fire 1 missile every 2.5 seconds 2 damage each
SRM-6
Fire 1 missile every 1.6 seconds 2 damage each
LRM-5
Fire 1 missile every 2 seconds 1 damage each
LRM-10
Fire 1 missile every 1 seconds 1 damage each
LRM-15
Fire 1 missile every 0.6 seconds 1 damage each
LRM-20
Fire 1 missile every 0.5 seconds 1 damage each
Of course this would need to be balanced with actual play time and testing.
Current AC-10 (2.5 second cooldown)
40 damage fired from 4 shots, 10 damage each shot, versus 40 armor, 7.5 seconds to deplete.
Current Large Laser (1 second beam, 3.25 second cooldown)
45 damage from 5 shots, 9 damage each shot, versus 40 armor, 17 seconds to deplete
My proposed system (Closer to TT values)
AC-10 (2.5 second cooldown)
20 damage fired from 8 shots, 2.5 damage each shot, 10 seconds versus 20 armor. 17.5 seconds to deplete.
Large Laser (1 second beam, 3.25 second cooldown)
21 damage from 7 shots, 3 damage each shot, versus 20 armor, 25.5 seconds to deplete
Missile examples
SRM-2
Fire 1 missile every 5 seconds for 2 damage each.
SRM-4
Fire 1 missile every 2.5 seconds 2 damage each
SRM-6
Fire 1 missile every 1.6 seconds 2 damage each
LRM-5
Fire 1 missile every 2 seconds 1 damage each
LRM-10
Fire 1 missile every 1 seconds 1 damage each
LRM-15
Fire 1 missile every 0.6 seconds 1 damage each
LRM-20
Fire 1 missile every 0.5 seconds 1 damage each
Of course this would need to be balanced with actual play time and testing.
problem is, with realtime movement that would mean you could charge at a long range mech way easier than currently, it will do less damage in the same ammount of time. so you would also have to divide speed by 3 to work. that would make the game the most boring thing ever.
#44
-
- 3 posts
Rookie
Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:23 PM
In refference to targeting as per the Box version of Mechwarrior vs a twitch FPS there is No ROLE PLAY in a twitch FPS. Your pilot is only as good as you are.. Calculations that decied if a single projectile hits is irrelevent.
Now since multiple projectiles have a natural scattering affect missles and Buckshot like projectiles will hit multiple areas of a mech. Some will miss entirerly. TAG and NARC should greatly reduce the number that miss the target, and center the impact area on the TAG/NARC location.
Chain projectiles like machien guns should function like Beams. Where the crosshair goes so goes the trail of slugs.
When calculateing Armor [IE dubbling or not] The damage that the weapons are doing are probably too great if the amount of armor that the Origonal MW had per mech/location is insufficient. Don't Dubble the armor reduce the Damahe things do. Box set Values LRM missle 1pt per missle that hits. SRM 2 pts per missle that hits. If you are useing clusters of Missles [or the buckshot weapons] then you will have to account for the spread to other locations.
Now for those that like to cluster weapons they should each have thier own location on impact. With beams you useually leave a trail of hot metal where they crisscross ove the mech. For those that use multiples like 3 PPC [Awsome] if all 3are in the same location then thier impact would be on the same loaction of thier target. 1 in each arm and 1 in a torso would probably result in them not hitting the same loaction. Not sure how difficult that would be to program, but if you allowed for 1 location of impact equal to the locations on the attacker [IE Rt Arm RtTorso, and center torso then if the attacker hit targets Center torso they would also hit the RT & LT torsos with 1 of each of the 3 weapons] Remember torso mounted weapons don't have as much range of targeting as an arm does. Now I don't see fireing archs take into account arms have greater swing. so since they are all treated like torso weapons then you will have to compensate for impact location.
BOATS: Mechs that are designed to utillize multiples of the same type of weapons were in the origonal games. If spread [and the 1/1pt is used for lrms] even though 40 lrms come at you , and if all missles hit that is 40 pts scattered about the mech [like I see mine do now] in a small mech that could still be death instantly. so be it. AMS reduces the number of missles [you do use AMS don't you?] so out of 40 say only 27 hit. That wouldnt kill an atlas unless it happend to all hit the head.
In Short it is easyer to follow the origonal damage tables of the box sets than to over compensate left and right hopeing to find that sweet spot of blance.
What I find to be the currently most OFF BALANCING things:
On many ocasions I have had mechs just Appear in front of me [at varying ranges but useually at 200m] What once was empty open space now has a standing Mech faceing me and giveing me a freindly ALFA Strike. I have a Very High Speed Internet connection [10mb upload/100mb download speed] My system handles graphics at 75% of max with no lag noticable [so I run with them at 65%] Yet even in my raven I see everything pass me at greater speeds. Even assault and heavy mechs. Ok let us say they dropped 1/2 thier weapon tonnage and increased their engines. That would be acceptable yet they never seem to lack an eccess of weapons. Something doesn't add up. I am not suffering Lag. even with Endo ,ferro ,and XL [no room for many weapons at that rate] Impressions are something Hinky is going on.
Power down/up to drop lock is fine. Takes me 5 seconds to power down and another 5 to power up yet I see others doing it repeatedly in 1/2 the time. I don't see Guardian ECM in the mech lab yet It isn't stock on certain mechs [raven expl] ECM should not affect Line of Sight but it seems to IF they are useing it.[Looks forward to when BAP works] The worst case of suddenly appearing mechs occured one match I chased a mech down a vally floor. He stopped turned and 4 other Mechs were suddenly there [standing not running]. after that All I saw were particle affects and the drit.
There are more but I need to encounter them a few more times to verrify they are happening as viewed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Law of Lazyness: Everything in the universe will take the easyest path possible unless acted upon by an intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now since multiple projectiles have a natural scattering affect missles and Buckshot like projectiles will hit multiple areas of a mech. Some will miss entirerly. TAG and NARC should greatly reduce the number that miss the target, and center the impact area on the TAG/NARC location.
Chain projectiles like machien guns should function like Beams. Where the crosshair goes so goes the trail of slugs.
When calculateing Armor [IE dubbling or not] The damage that the weapons are doing are probably too great if the amount of armor that the Origonal MW had per mech/location is insufficient. Don't Dubble the armor reduce the Damahe things do. Box set Values LRM missle 1pt per missle that hits. SRM 2 pts per missle that hits. If you are useing clusters of Missles [or the buckshot weapons] then you will have to account for the spread to other locations.
Now for those that like to cluster weapons they should each have thier own location on impact. With beams you useually leave a trail of hot metal where they crisscross ove the mech. For those that use multiples like 3 PPC [Awsome] if all 3are in the same location then thier impact would be on the same loaction of thier target. 1 in each arm and 1 in a torso would probably result in them not hitting the same loaction. Not sure how difficult that would be to program, but if you allowed for 1 location of impact equal to the locations on the attacker [IE Rt Arm RtTorso, and center torso then if the attacker hit targets Center torso they would also hit the RT & LT torsos with 1 of each of the 3 weapons] Remember torso mounted weapons don't have as much range of targeting as an arm does. Now I don't see fireing archs take into account arms have greater swing. so since they are all treated like torso weapons then you will have to compensate for impact location.
BOATS: Mechs that are designed to utillize multiples of the same type of weapons were in the origonal games. If spread [and the 1/1pt is used for lrms] even though 40 lrms come at you , and if all missles hit that is 40 pts scattered about the mech [like I see mine do now] in a small mech that could still be death instantly. so be it. AMS reduces the number of missles [you do use AMS don't you?] so out of 40 say only 27 hit. That wouldnt kill an atlas unless it happend to all hit the head.
In Short it is easyer to follow the origonal damage tables of the box sets than to over compensate left and right hopeing to find that sweet spot of blance.
What I find to be the currently most OFF BALANCING things:
On many ocasions I have had mechs just Appear in front of me [at varying ranges but useually at 200m] What once was empty open space now has a standing Mech faceing me and giveing me a freindly ALFA Strike. I have a Very High Speed Internet connection [10mb upload/100mb download speed] My system handles graphics at 75% of max with no lag noticable [so I run with them at 65%] Yet even in my raven I see everything pass me at greater speeds. Even assault and heavy mechs. Ok let us say they dropped 1/2 thier weapon tonnage and increased their engines. That would be acceptable yet they never seem to lack an eccess of weapons. Something doesn't add up. I am not suffering Lag. even with Endo ,ferro ,and XL [no room for many weapons at that rate] Impressions are something Hinky is going on.
Power down/up to drop lock is fine. Takes me 5 seconds to power down and another 5 to power up yet I see others doing it repeatedly in 1/2 the time. I don't see Guardian ECM in the mech lab yet It isn't stock on certain mechs [raven expl] ECM should not affect Line of Sight but it seems to IF they are useing it.[Looks forward to when BAP works] The worst case of suddenly appearing mechs occured one match I chased a mech down a vally floor. He stopped turned and 4 other Mechs were suddenly there [standing not running]. after that All I saw were particle affects and the drit.
There are more but I need to encounter them a few more times to verrify they are happening as viewed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Law of Lazyness: Everything in the universe will take the easyest path possible unless acted upon by an intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#45
-
-
- Survivor
- 538 posts
Member
- LocationDenver, CO
Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:33 PM
MWO, especially once tuned over the coming year, will still be Battletech and capture it mostly - though not perfectly - well.
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
For this approach to a Battletech computer game, the main difference between TT and FP-CG is how the pilot's skill is simulated: in TT, there is a Gunnery Skill number; in FP-CG, there is the player's actual skill at aiming ; and both of these are then subjected to external modifers and measured against simple deviation algorithms. This, of course, is for the attacker. For the defender, the number modifiers awarded to a defender for his chosen actions are replaced by his actual skill at maneuvering the vehicle through the environment. It all translates very well. Plus, it's the best way to impliment the BT heat scale's targeting negatives.
Why then all the controversy with such ideas? Despite the visceral reaction among online players toward anything that smacks of random determination replacing perceived FPS player skill, most players would be happy to discuss reasonable shot deviation mechanics. Most are familiar with factors that can make aiming and concentration more difficult in a combat sim and many here are also familiar with the BT reduced-tech background story. While we often see posts begin with "use more TT" and end with "that doesn't belong here" (or a dozen variations of the same notions), most would welcome a logical examination of the subject. But we don't get it because MWO has already implimented what is essentially a no-variation-from-the-crosshair aiming system and a slew of accompanying adjustments to BT. And at the moment it looks like this isn't up for future modification. This approach only reinforces the simple notion that player skill and choice/consequence-based and diminished-technology-based deviation can't coexist. This ensures MWO will miss having an entire important layer of challenge and enjoyment that is integral to BT's success, and leaves players looking ahead to when someone else gets the license and commits to making it happen. I'd rather that PGI look upon this as a not-too-distant future upgrade to the game.
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
For this approach to a Battletech computer game, the main difference between TT and FP-CG is how the pilot's skill is simulated: in TT, there is a Gunnery Skill number; in FP-CG, there is the player's actual skill at aiming ; and both of these are then subjected to external modifers and measured against simple deviation algorithms. This, of course, is for the attacker. For the defender, the number modifiers awarded to a defender for his chosen actions are replaced by his actual skill at maneuvering the vehicle through the environment. It all translates very well. Plus, it's the best way to impliment the BT heat scale's targeting negatives.
Why then all the controversy with such ideas? Despite the visceral reaction among online players toward anything that smacks of random determination replacing perceived FPS player skill, most players would be happy to discuss reasonable shot deviation mechanics. Most are familiar with factors that can make aiming and concentration more difficult in a combat sim and many here are also familiar with the BT reduced-tech background story. While we often see posts begin with "use more TT" and end with "that doesn't belong here" (or a dozen variations of the same notions), most would welcome a logical examination of the subject. But we don't get it because MWO has already implimented what is essentially a no-variation-from-the-crosshair aiming system and a slew of accompanying adjustments to BT. And at the moment it looks like this isn't up for future modification. This approach only reinforces the simple notion that player skill and choice/consequence-based and diminished-technology-based deviation can't coexist. This ensures MWO will miss having an entire important layer of challenge and enjoyment that is integral to BT's success, and leaves players looking ahead to when someone else gets the license and commits to making it happen. I'd rather that PGI look upon this as a not-too-distant future upgrade to the game.
Edited by Elyam, 11 March 2013 - 03:41 PM.
#46
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 2,193 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:44 PM
Elyam, on 11 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:
MWO, especially once tuned over the coming year, will still be Battletech and capture it mostly - though not perfectly - well.
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
For this approach to a Battletech computer game, the main difference between TT and FP-CG is how the pilot's skill is simulated: in TT, there is a Gunnery Skill number; in FP-CG, there is the player's actual skill at aiming ; and both of these are then subjected to external modifers and measured against simple deviation algorithms. This, of course, is for the attacker. For the defender, the number modifiers awarded to a defender for his chosen actions are replaced by his actual skill at maneuvering the vehicle through the environment. It all translates very well. Plus, it's the best way to impliment the BT heat scale's targeting negatives.
Why then all the controversy with such ideas? Despite the visceral reaction among online players toward anything that smacks of random determination replacing perceived FPS player skill, most players would be happy to discuss reasonable shot deviation mechanics. Most are familiar with factors that can make aiming and concentration more difficult in a combat sim and many here are also familiar with the BT reduced-tech background story. While we often see posts begin with "use more TT" and end with "that doesn't belong here" (or a dozen variations of the same notions), most would welcome a logical examination of the subject. But we don't get it because MWO has already implimented what is essentially a no-variation-from-the-crosshair aiming system and a slew of accompanying adjustments to BT. And at the moment it looks like this isn't up for future modification. This approach only reinforces the simple notion that player skill and choice/consequence-based and diminished-technology-based deviation can't coexist. This ensures MWO will miss having an entire important layer of challenge and enjoyment that is integral to BT's success, and leaves players looking ahead to when someone else gets the license and commits to making it happen. I'd rather that PGI look upon this as a not-too-distant future upgrade to the game.
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
For this approach to a Battletech computer game, the main difference between TT and FP-CG is how the pilot's skill is simulated: in TT, there is a Gunnery Skill number; in FP-CG, there is the player's actual skill at aiming ; and both of these are then subjected to external modifers and measured against simple deviation algorithms. This, of course, is for the attacker. For the defender, the number modifiers awarded to a defender for his chosen actions are replaced by his actual skill at maneuvering the vehicle through the environment. It all translates very well. Plus, it's the best way to impliment the BT heat scale's targeting negatives.
Why then all the controversy with such ideas? Despite the visceral reaction among online players toward anything that smacks of random determination replacing perceived FPS player skill, most players would be happy to discuss reasonable shot deviation mechanics. Most are familiar with factors that can make aiming and concentration more difficult in a combat sim and many here are also familiar with the BT reduced-tech background story. While we often see posts begin with "use more TT" and end with "that doesn't belong here" (or a dozen variations of the same notions), most would welcome a logical examination of the subject. But we don't get it because MWO has already implimented what is essentially a no-variation-from-the-crosshair aiming system and a slew of accompanying adjustments to BT. And at the moment it looks like this isn't up for future modification. This approach only reinforces the simple notion that player skill and choice/consequence-based and diminished-technology-based deviation can't coexist. This ensures MWO will miss having an entire important layer of challenge and enjoyment that is integral to BT's success, and leaves players looking ahead to when someone else gets the license and commits to making it happen. I'd rather that PGI look upon this as a not-too-distant future upgrade to the game.
Well said. TT flavor/game mechanics can be brought to this game in a way that compliment its FPS nature.
However, i have stated before that the TT player is not the target audience.
It could be the game is functioning in an "acceptable state", while the devs work on more important aspects of the game. i'm sure resources are limited and a huge list of things need implementing before its worth considering a rework of game mechanics. Things like making money, 12 vs.12 games. its also i think why changes to ECM are slow in coming.
The other side of resources is that it doesn't mater how much you toss at it, some things just take a lot of time, even with 4-5 times the money and people. some issue can only be solved by one person.
#48
-
-
- 152 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:30 PM
dal10, on 08 March 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:
(this may be a bit out of line, but i can only withstand stupidity of certain magnitude. feel free to mod what you guys wish)
you sir, have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
reasons why you have no idea what you are talking about:
Armor: if armor was not doubled, DO YOU HAVE ANY BLOODY IDEA HOW FAST THINGS WOULD DIE? imagine an atlas with 47 points of armor on its central torso, which is less than a hunchback has now. things that could almost (or fully) strip the torso in 1 salvo
3 srm 6 cent, ac/20 cat splat cat, 9 medium laser 4p, any lrm boat, 4 erppc stalker, 6 large laser stalker, 4 ppc 4 streak 2 stalker any atlas that has more than half a brain, the stock 9M awesome 6 medium pulse laser cicada, the noisy cricket,triple ultra 5 muromets, the stock stalker (just about any variant) 4 medium laser 2 srm 4 jenner, 3 srm 6 commando. do i really need to go on?
armor was doubled to help deal with the fact you can actually aim weapons. this game does not dice roll to decide hits, there would be no purpose in doing a FPS if you had to roll a die to decide if your weapon hit or not(and where it hit while you are at it). h3ll, i would even support the tripling of armor, as the game plays way too fast. mechs aren't supposed to go down in 10 seconds of firing from full armor.
triple weapons ROF. this is a simple one, how many people would play this game if it operated on 10 second turns? can you imagine how bored people would get if they had to wait 10 seconds to turn left or right and/fire weapons. this game would die due to the fact only a few hardcore players would even deign to acknowledge its existence.
dumb-fire srms. actually srms used to be the most accurate weapon in the game. initially they had a massive shotgun spread (quintuple the worst spread you have seen in OB and that would be about right) then pgi implented them as basically one missile. that was when the first boaters (splat cats...) appeared. they were notorious for headshots, as srms were basically missile lasers out to 270. have you ever seen a 90 damage headshot at 260 meters, i suffered one at the hands of a rather good player. yeah... even now srms are decent for killing lights if they don't have artemis, i just use them as an anti-light mech shotgun, a role they excel at.
ECM:
i don't mind this implementation too much anymore, i just wish that the detection range was 300 meters instead of 200 so you could actually target things without already being in the bubble. but i am not beating this dead horse again.
i am pretty sure ECM was the anti-bap not the other way around, though bap would know it was being jammed.
streaks always hit, due to stats, a lot of people have been noticing streaks hit around 75% of the time, but as 3rd guy said, there is no good way to implement them in a game like this.
you sir, have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
reasons why you have no idea what you are talking about:
Armor: if armor was not doubled, DO YOU HAVE ANY BLOODY IDEA HOW FAST THINGS WOULD DIE? imagine an atlas with 47 points of armor on its central torso, which is less than a hunchback has now. things that could almost (or fully) strip the torso in 1 salvo
3 srm 6 cent, ac/20 cat splat cat, 9 medium laser 4p, any lrm boat, 4 erppc stalker, 6 large laser stalker, 4 ppc 4 streak 2 stalker any atlas that has more than half a brain, the stock 9M awesome 6 medium pulse laser cicada, the noisy cricket,triple ultra 5 muromets, the stock stalker (just about any variant) 4 medium laser 2 srm 4 jenner, 3 srm 6 commando. do i really need to go on?
armor was doubled to help deal with the fact you can actually aim weapons. this game does not dice roll to decide hits, there would be no purpose in doing a FPS if you had to roll a die to decide if your weapon hit or not(and where it hit while you are at it). h3ll, i would even support the tripling of armor, as the game plays way too fast. mechs aren't supposed to go down in 10 seconds of firing from full armor.
triple weapons ROF. this is a simple one, how many people would play this game if it operated on 10 second turns? can you imagine how bored people would get if they had to wait 10 seconds to turn left or right and/fire weapons. this game would die due to the fact only a few hardcore players would even deign to acknowledge its existence.
dumb-fire srms. actually srms used to be the most accurate weapon in the game. initially they had a massive shotgun spread (quintuple the worst spread you have seen in OB and that would be about right) then pgi implented them as basically one missile. that was when the first boaters (splat cats...) appeared. they were notorious for headshots, as srms were basically missile lasers out to 270. have you ever seen a 90 damage headshot at 260 meters, i suffered one at the hands of a rather good player. yeah... even now srms are decent for killing lights if they don't have artemis, i just use them as an anti-light mech shotgun, a role they excel at.
ECM:
i don't mind this implementation too much anymore, i just wish that the detection range was 300 meters instead of 200 so you could actually target things without already being in the bubble. but i am not beating this dead horse again.
i am pretty sure ECM was the anti-bap not the other way around, though bap would know it was being jammed.
streaks always hit, due to stats, a lot of people have been noticing streaks hit around 75% of the time, but as 3rd guy said, there is no good way to implement them in a game like this.
Your right, much of this fanbase that I have had to tolerate and eventually quit the games has killed every single mechwarrior game online since its inception. These are the dungeon and dragon fans who never played sports to save their lives and have the eye hand coordination on par with an 8 year old girl. They will ruin this game and if PGI does not work on balance properly, this game will stay about 10,000 players and eventually die off.
#49
-
-
- 1,924 posts
Member
- LocationMN
Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:47 PM
Make LRMs and SSRM's targetable assets (so I can pew pew them with my lasers).... That'll stop your stupid never missing streaks (or at least add a level of hysterically awesome laser spray from teammates).
"Dude."
"I swear, there were streak missiles coming at me..."
"So you tried to hit them with your ERPPCs?"
#50
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,628 posts
Member
- LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ
Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:00 PM
Elyam, on 11 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
Before we go any further there, please show me an example of a system that implements this using the various mixes, volumes of weapons and hardpoints found on a firing bt mech.
#51
-
-
- 2,818 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:14 PM
Elyam, on 11 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:
MWO, especially once tuned over the coming year, will still be Battletech and capture it mostly - though not perfectly - well.
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
For this approach to a Battletech computer game, the main difference between TT and FP-CG is how the pilot's skill is simulated: in TT, there is a Gunnery Skill number; in FP-CG, there is the player's actual skill at aiming ; and both of these are then subjected to external modifers and measured against simple deviation algorithms. This, of course, is for the attacker. For the defender, the number modifiers awarded to a defender for his chosen actions are replaced by his actual skill at maneuvering the vehicle through the environment. It all translates very well. Plus, it's the best way to impliment the BT heat scale's targeting negatives.
Why then all the controversy with such ideas? Despite the visceral reaction among online players toward anything that smacks of random determination replacing perceived FPS player skill, most players would be happy to discuss reasonable shot deviation mechanics. Most are familiar with factors that can make aiming and concentration more difficult in a combat sim and many here are also familiar with the BT reduced-tech background story. While we often see posts begin with "use more TT" and end with "that doesn't belong here" (or a dozen variations of the same notions), most would welcome a logical examination of the subject. But we don't get it because MWO has already implimented what is essentially a no-variation-from-the-crosshair aiming system and a slew of accompanying adjustments to BT. And at the moment it looks like this isn't up for future modification. This approach only reinforces the simple notion that player skill and choice/consequence-based and diminished-technology-based deviation can't coexist. This ensures MWO will miss having an entire important layer of challenge and enjoyment that is integral to BT's success, and leaves players looking ahead to when someone else gets the license and commits to making it happen. I'd rather that PGI look upon this as a not-too-distant future upgrade to the game.
But the OP is largely correct, and the original BT/MW TT rules can indeed be the primary infrastructure for a succesful FPS-flavor mech sim. When done properly, that infrastructure is not different at all than an FPS that uses a dynamic shot deviation indicator around the aiming reticule: you get to aim, but based on your actions, the target's actions, intervening obstacles, heat scale modifiers, equipment damage, and other factors, the impact point can increasingly stray. Area weapons can still work in a way similar to how they do now in MWO, which isn't very different than they do in TT. Your skill is retained, and it's your choices that increase or decrease the chance of deviation, plus of course the choices your target makes.
For this approach to a Battletech computer game, the main difference between TT and FP-CG is how the pilot's skill is simulated: in TT, there is a Gunnery Skill number; in FP-CG, there is the player's actual skill at aiming ; and both of these are then subjected to external modifers and measured against simple deviation algorithms. This, of course, is for the attacker. For the defender, the number modifiers awarded to a defender for his chosen actions are replaced by his actual skill at maneuvering the vehicle through the environment. It all translates very well. Plus, it's the best way to impliment the BT heat scale's targeting negatives.
Why then all the controversy with such ideas? Despite the visceral reaction among online players toward anything that smacks of random determination replacing perceived FPS player skill, most players would be happy to discuss reasonable shot deviation mechanics. Most are familiar with factors that can make aiming and concentration more difficult in a combat sim and many here are also familiar with the BT reduced-tech background story. While we often see posts begin with "use more TT" and end with "that doesn't belong here" (or a dozen variations of the same notions), most would welcome a logical examination of the subject. But we don't get it because MWO has already implimented what is essentially a no-variation-from-the-crosshair aiming system and a slew of accompanying adjustments to BT. And at the moment it looks like this isn't up for future modification. This approach only reinforces the simple notion that player skill and choice/consequence-based and diminished-technology-based deviation can't coexist. This ensures MWO will miss having an entire important layer of challenge and enjoyment that is integral to BT's success, and leaves players looking ahead to when someone else gets the license and commits to making it happen. I'd rather that PGI look upon this as a not-too-distant future upgrade to the game.
This is a very well elaborated and spoken (typed?) post on the very issues behind MWO, and past MechWarrior games. The previous games never captured overall idea of Battletech.
And this is not just a lore issue alone. It is heavily effecting balance in the game.
Why do you think the sudden crop of threads and post about why Assault mech players feel like their armor is paper thin while Lights feel invincible to weapon fire?
Ralgas, on 11 March 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:
Before we go any further there, please show me an example of a system that implements this using the various mixes, volumes of weapons and hardpoints found on a firing bt mech.
To clarify, what exactly are you looking for? A game or real-world example of a multi-weapon platform?
We both know a real-world example is just thrown out the window. First off, for balance sake, real-world can't be followed 100%. And second, there is no real-world analog to a Battlemech.
So I am going to assume a game. Off of the top of my head, I am not getting any memories or ideas of a game that allowed multiple weapons to be utilized at the same time, at the pacing at which MWO is set to play on, and emphasis on being tactical instead of twitchy.
I will have to get back to you on that subject, tomorrow.
#52
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,628 posts
Member
- LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ
Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:32 PM
Ingame sir,
I only challenge it as i believe it's a coding issue when combined with convergence (but i'm not a programmer). Base than on being a player of mech shooters since the 89' original and pretty sure i haven't seen it implemented without being locked to a specific weapon type (cycle though gun/las/missles per the xbox craptacular) or at most 2 fixed weps at once (hawken).
Edit: My point is that 5-10 mixed weps fired from different firing points simultaneously (alpha stikes) may be a bit harder to get working than those that say "do it" realise . TBH i'm curious myself, will accept space sims and vehicle combat within the above framework
I only challenge it as i believe it's a coding issue when combined with convergence (but i'm not a programmer). Base than on being a player of mech shooters since the 89' original and pretty sure i haven't seen it implemented without being locked to a specific weapon type (cycle though gun/las/missles per the xbox craptacular) or at most 2 fixed weps at once (hawken).
Edit: My point is that 5-10 mixed weps fired from different firing points simultaneously (alpha stikes) may be a bit harder to get working than those that say "do it" realise . TBH i'm curious myself, will accept space sims and vehicle combat within the above framework
Edited by Ralgas, 11 March 2013 - 09:52 PM.
#53
-
-
- 3,195 posts
Member
- LocationEquestria
Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:39 PM
CHWarpath, on 11 March 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:
Your right, much of this fanbase that I have had to tolerate and eventually quit the games has killed every single mechwarrior game online since its inception. These are the dungeon and dragon fans who never played sports to save their lives and have the eye hand coordination on par with an 8 year old girl. They will ruin this game and if PGI does not work on balance properly, this game will stay about 10,000 players and eventually die off.
if you are going to be this much of a D-bag could you pick a different side.
i think this community would benefit greatly from playing a couple matches of table top and looking at the rule books. this game should not be based purely on the rules given in the books, but there is plenty of knowledge to be had there. this is a game and as such there are many core design concepts that are easily transferable.
i am one of those D&D fans who never played sports. card games, roleplaying, computer games, and consoles before they went to crap for a while in elementary school i was even in a chess club. anouncing yourself as a brain dead jock is not likely to lend you much credence here. in fact the nerds, geeks, and misfits like myself most likely make up the majority of those who actually understand software, programming, and game design. how many programming languages do you know? i am fluent in 2 and have a basic working knowledge of 2 more. when i play games i look at them and try to discern the core reasons why i actually enjoy the game. what makes it "fun". i look at individual mechanics and make my best efforts to reverse engineer them. to some of us D&D fans these games are puzzle boxes to be unlocked. instead of mindless pointing and shooting.
being a mindless lump is not something you should be proud of. the developers most likely played the tabletop, considering that is where they started when the initially designed the game, and i would be more than a little surprised if there weren't a sizable portion of them that also played D&D.
i may not be able to throw, but i understand what causes lag shield, why lasers are the least processor intensive weapons in the game, what specifically causes some of the bugs in the game, and i am also capable of giving real world examples for most technology or concepts in this game off the top of my head. this is not because i memorze anything my memory is crap for the most part. i can do this because i use logic, reason, and statistical analysis <-that last one came mostly from calculating odds on dice rolls for games like D&D.
go design an original game from scratch and see how far your throwing arm gets you.
Edited by blinkin, 11 March 2013 - 11:42 PM.
#54
-
-
- 421 posts
Member
- LocationSpace Pirate
Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:00 AM
Uhhhhh SRMs are really easy to hit with be sure to hit "/" to open the bay doors of your splatcat. I am curious why u think making the game more based off a pen and paper table top roots would make it more balanced. Did you play the table top game? I did and while its very fun the devs need to take a lot of liberties to make this balanced. Imagine if you played magic the gathering FPS, it would need tweaking too.
#55
-
-
- 131 posts
Member
- LocationBremerton, WA
Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:13 AM
CloaknDagger, on 08 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:
1. Doubling Armor
Effect: Weight class balance is destroyed. Light mechs can easily get in a brawl with mechs 5 times their size and beat them with their lag shields. And combined with...
2. Tripling weapon RoF
Effect: Weapon balance is destroyed. Gauss is the only ballistic worth using, all canon designs are way overheated, Energy boats are forced to boat heat sinks.
Effect: Weight class balance is destroyed. Light mechs can easily get in a brawl with mechs 5 times their size and beat them with their lag shields. And combined with...
2. Tripling weapon RoF
Effect: Weapon balance is destroyed. Gauss is the only ballistic worth using, all canon designs are way overheated, Energy boats are forced to boat heat sinks.
I see why they did this, though. A third the rate of fire makes for a boring-*** game. How many other games have you played where you only get to shoot your lasers every ten seconds? and if they triple damage output, they have to triple the armor, since nobody wants to trudge through the dirt for 2-3 minutes to die after 6 seconds of "the fun part". If only they'd given thought to the heat effect...
Quote
3. No guidance on SRMs.
Effect: By treating SRMs like Rocket Launchers, They are useless at anything other than point blank. I mean that literally, I can count on one hand the number of times an SRM boat killed me. Every time was at point blank. They literally have no range.
Effect: By treating SRMs like Rocket Launchers, They are useless at anything other than point blank. I mean that literally, I can count on one hand the number of times an SRM boat killed me. Every time was at point blank. They literally have no range.
One word: SPLATCAT. If SRMs aren't killing you, then you haven't encountered enough of the second-most-complained-about build in the game. My current Atlas build wouldn't be anywhere without its 3 SRM launchers. Its only other side-arm... well, I'll save that for later. Look up the tons of threads on "Nerf Splat-Cats" for plenty more dissenting opinions.
Quote
4. Treating ECM like Stealth Armor, AECM, and a regular ECM all at the same time.
Effect: I think you know just how badly this is screwing up the game. ECM doesn't stop missile locks in canon, or reduce detection range.
Effect: I think you know just how badly this is screwing up the game. ECM doesn't stop missile locks in canon, or reduce detection range.
No, this effect was added because PGI was sick of the QQing about LRMs. I don't blame them. If us BETA-TESTERS (emphasis intended here) had just given them time to balance the damn things in some other way, instead of ranting nonstop like rabid dogs (like they do now about ECM), I'd bet they would have found a better way. Still, there are LRM boats learning to adapt, now that the ECM Flavor-Of-The-Month rush has started subsiding. Hopefully, we will beta-test them into a happy medium on both technologies... but I won't hold our breath on us collectively doing it in a civilized manner.
Quote
5. Treating BAP as... a targeting system?
Effect: BAP is supposed to act as a better sensor system. That it does do. But it is also supposed to be a Counter-ECM. Any ECM field it's near is nullified. In here, it... isn't. That's why nobody uses BAP.
Effect: BAP is supposed to act as a better sensor system. That it does do. But it is also supposed to be a Counter-ECM. Any ECM field it's near is nullified. In here, it... isn't. That's why nobody uses BAP.
Actually, I couldn't agree more here. Some tweaking on BAP would be useful. Here's an idea for PGI - give it the ECM counter effect. That'd just make all those ECM QQers smile and stop sucking their thumbs for a bit, at least until they go back to QQing about Splat-Cats, Streak-Cats, LRMs, Gauss Rifles, or whatever the hell else makes them lose games occasionally.
Quote
6. Streak SRMs always hit.
Effect: SSRMs are only supposed to be perfectly accurate IF you actually get a hit. That is, it's just as accurate as any other weapon, except more missiles hit, and if you miss, the weapon doesn't fire. Instead, we get a weapon that almost never misses, and does tons of damage for low heat and weight. Also it goes great on ECM mechs.
Effect: SSRMs are only supposed to be perfectly accurate IF you actually get a hit. That is, it's just as accurate as any other weapon, except more missiles hit, and if you miss, the weapon doesn't fire. Instead, we get a weapon that almost never misses, and does tons of damage for low heat and weight. Also it goes great on ECM mechs.
Can't think of a lot of other ways to implement Streaks. A weapon that does not fire when you pull the trigger may lead to a lot of players thinking they don't work at all; ultimately, it needs to be worth taking over SRM 2's for the added weight, and the current implementation is the only simple, fun-to-use way I can think of to do it. Feel free to suggest alternatives, though; it's easy to complain, but not so easy to be constructive, which is what PGI needs from us.
Quote
7. Unjammable U/AC-5s
Effect: U/AC-5's still suck.
Effect: U/AC-5's still suck.
That's just, like, your opinion, man! As I was saying about my Atlas' other sidearms, they're dual UAC5s. I've had nothing but great things to say about those guns - my favorite weapons in the entire game - ever since I first strapped two of them on a Cataphract. Best pinpoint DPS in the game; I can't think of anything that cores Mechs faster. Is it reliable all the time? No, and that's a damn good thing - they'd be completely broken, hands-down, if there weren't some risks involved with that amount of firepower. But for me, though, UAC5s just make me feel dirty for using them, often enough despite the occasional jams, that I'm constantly looking for ways to put them on builds that have no business using them.
Quote
8. Machineguns not doing 2 damage.
Effect: MGs are useless.
Effect: MGs are useless.
Umm... okay, I got nothin'. I agree here - MGs suck ***. I wish PGI would stop pussyfooting around with useless crit-seeking and just let them deal some real damage. Hopefully they're noticing how hardly anybody's using them still and continue to get the point that they suck and need fixing.
Quote
9. Less than Double Double Heat Sinks.
Effect: EVERYTHING past intro tech was designed with DHS in mind. ERPPCs, ERLLs, MRMs, ect.... Effectively reducing heat sinking across the board just ***** them even more than already. Heat was ALREADY A PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
Effect: EVERYTHING past intro tech was designed with DHS in mind. ERPPCs, ERLLs, MRMs, ect.... Effectively reducing heat sinking across the board just ***** them even more than already. Heat was ALREADY A PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
Same here. Tripling rate of fire tripled heat output, but they did nothing to mitigate that. Except...
Quote
10. No heat scale effects.
Effect: With only "shutdown" and "perfectly fine", there's absolutely no reason not to alpha strike. In TT you would slow down, become less accurate, and maybe blow up with too much heat. NOPE! Not here!
Effect: With only "shutdown" and "perfectly fine", there's absolutely no reason not to alpha strike. In TT you would slow down, become less accurate, and maybe blow up with too much heat. NOPE! Not here!
Whoa, man... pick your pony. You can't complain about how heat is too high and then complain that the penalties for high heat aren't harsh enough. You're arguing that people shouldn't be able to just Alpha-strike willy-nilly with no side-effects, when you just argued that they should be able to do it more. This is a logical contradiction. Either you're grasping for straws, or you WANT to not be taken seriously... which is it?
At least you made a FEW points I could agree with. The rest, however, you'd better do some homework on. Unlike Duke Nukem Forever, which had no public beta test, we can share the blame if this gig fails. It was our job when we signed up for the Beta to help them get this right; instead, collectively, we QQ and moan, offer little along the way of positive feedback, and get angry when it takes them more than 5 minutes to get something fixed. No, this isn't Duke Nukem Forever; if this one dies, it'll be because we helped them kill it.
#56
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,628 posts
Member
- LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ
Posted 12 March 2013 - 12:42 AM
Galathon Redd, on 12 March 2013 - 12:13 AM, said:
Same here. Tripling rate of fire tripled heat output, but they did nothing to mitigate that. Except...
I think they might have gotten cool run and heat containment backwards, were they to be reversed (-5 % to heat cap and +5% to dissipation at top tiers) it might make life interesting
#57
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,644 posts
Member
Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:40 AM
Khobai, on 11 March 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:
Yes tripling the rate of fire made sense. Because no one wants to play a live-action game with 10 second cooldowns. However what doesn't make sense is that they didn't divide damage or heat by 3.
Additionally they introduced pinpoint aiming but kept the armor values based on random hit locations. Again that makes no sense.
Those are the two major balance problems with weapons.
It seems we are in agreement here.
I believe it may also be wrong to phrase the change PGI made as tripling the rate of fire. The table top rules have no concept of fire rates. It just says how much damage a weapon can inflict over a turn (which happens to be 10 seconds long). The "flavor text" states that this doesn't correlate directly to a rate of fire of 1 shot per 10 seconds. Auto-Cannons are explicitely mentioned as not working like that.
So what PGI really did was tripling the damage ouptut and heat generation over time of the weapons.
Edited by MustrumRidcully, 12 March 2013 - 04:43 AM.
#58
-
-
- 2,299 posts
Member
Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:56 PM
blinkin, on 10 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:
from what i understand it depends on what book you look at.
In the novels, yes - in the rules, not really.
As far as I know, the solaris rules are the only ones that changed the turn time down to under ten seconds time - and even they admitted that doing so changed the weapons balance.
Quote
in some books autocannons fire single shots just like this game in other books they act more like WW2 fighter plane cannons, firing full auto with small explosive shells.
which doesn't matter for our purposes.
We already know (in numbers) how much damage the various weapons do in a single salvo (be that salvo a single big round, like a gauss, or a lot of rounds, like a RAC), and how said damage is applied to the target.
Quote
i think ideas should be drawn from table top, but dice based rules should not control everything.
What should be done is to pull all of the combat system stuff from the TT that simulates the weapons, the 'mech's ability to handle those weapons, and how various factors affect said weapons and the mech's ability to handle them, and implement them in real-time.
And totally leave out the stuff that's in the TT to simulate the MechWarrior's skills as relates to gunnery. MW skills relating to stuff handled with the neurohelmet (which we have no way of simulating with any computer controller)... probably deserve to be implemented and tested, to some extent.
----
It would be nice to have a MW video game that did more than just simulate the 'Mech's mobility and actually went further and actually simulated how a 'Mech actually handles the weapons mounted to it.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
#59
-
-
- 396 posts
Member
Posted 12 March 2013 - 11:43 PM
The 10 second interval between shots is a matter of opinion (and with chain firing it would be nowhere near 10 seconds of waiting between shots), but judging by the immense success of WoT, a lot of people don't mind it.
#60
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 92 posts
Member
Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:23 AM
CloaknDagger, on 08 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:
Let's see MWO's.record on ignoring canon so far:
1. Doubling Armor
Effect: Weight class balance is destroyed. Light mechs can easily get in a brawl with mechs 5 times their size and beat them with their lag shields. And combined with...
2. Tripling weapon RoF
Effect: Weapon balance is destroyed. Gauss is the only ballistic worth using, all canon designs are way overheated, Energy boats are forced to boat heat sinks.
3. No guidance on SRMs.
Effect: By treating SRMs like Rocket Launchers, They are useless at anything other than point blank. I mean that literally, I can count on one hand the number of times an SRM boat killed me. Every time was at point blank. They literally have no range.
4. Treating ECM like Stealth Armor, AECM, and a regular ECM all at the same time.
Effect: I think you know just how badly this is screwing up the game. ECM doesn't stop missile locks in canon, or reduce detection range.
5. Treating BAP as... a targeting system?
Effect: BAP is supposed to act as a better sensor system. That it does do. But it is also supposed to be a Counter-ECM. Any ECM field it's near is nullified. In here, it... isn't. That's why nobody uses BAP.
6. Streak SRMs always hit.
Effect: SSRMs are only supposed to be perfectly accurate IF you actually get a hit. That is, it's just as accurate as any other weapon, except more missiles hit, and if you miss, the weapon doesn't fire. Instead, we get a weapon that almost never misses, and does tons of damage for low heat and weight. Also it goes great on ECM mechs.
7. Unjammable U/AC-5s
Effect: U/AC-5's still suck.
8. Machineguns not doing 2 damage.
Effect: MGs are useless.
9. Less than Double Double Heat Sinks.
Effect: EVERYTHING past intro tech was designed with DHS in mind. ERPPCs, ERLLs, MRMs, ect.... Effectively reducing heat sinking across the board just ***** them even more than already. Heat was ALREADY A PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
10. No heat scale effects.
Effect: With only "shutdown" and "perfectly fine", there's absolutely no reason not to alpha strike. In TT you would slow down, become less accurate, and maybe blow up with too much heat. NOPE! Not here!
Continue to ignore canon Piranha, I'm sure it will end up just as well as Duke Nukem Forever did.
1. Doubling Armor
Effect: Weight class balance is destroyed. Light mechs can easily get in a brawl with mechs 5 times their size and beat them with their lag shields. And combined with...
2. Tripling weapon RoF
Effect: Weapon balance is destroyed. Gauss is the only ballistic worth using, all canon designs are way overheated, Energy boats are forced to boat heat sinks.
3. No guidance on SRMs.
Effect: By treating SRMs like Rocket Launchers, They are useless at anything other than point blank. I mean that literally, I can count on one hand the number of times an SRM boat killed me. Every time was at point blank. They literally have no range.
4. Treating ECM like Stealth Armor, AECM, and a regular ECM all at the same time.
Effect: I think you know just how badly this is screwing up the game. ECM doesn't stop missile locks in canon, or reduce detection range.
5. Treating BAP as... a targeting system?
Effect: BAP is supposed to act as a better sensor system. That it does do. But it is also supposed to be a Counter-ECM. Any ECM field it's near is nullified. In here, it... isn't. That's why nobody uses BAP.
6. Streak SRMs always hit.
Effect: SSRMs are only supposed to be perfectly accurate IF you actually get a hit. That is, it's just as accurate as any other weapon, except more missiles hit, and if you miss, the weapon doesn't fire. Instead, we get a weapon that almost never misses, and does tons of damage for low heat and weight. Also it goes great on ECM mechs.
7. Unjammable U/AC-5s
Effect: U/AC-5's still suck.
8. Machineguns not doing 2 damage.
Effect: MGs are useless.
9. Less than Double Double Heat Sinks.
Effect: EVERYTHING past intro tech was designed with DHS in mind. ERPPCs, ERLLs, MRMs, ect.... Effectively reducing heat sinking across the board just ***** them even more than already. Heat was ALREADY A PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.
10. No heat scale effects.
Effect: With only "shutdown" and "perfectly fine", there's absolutely no reason not to alpha strike. In TT you would slow down, become less accurate, and maybe blow up with too much heat. NOPE! Not here!
Continue to ignore canon Piranha, I'm sure it will end up just as well as Duke Nukem Forever did.
1. There is no "Lagshield" anymore - It´s just bad aiming...
2. Energy Boats are forced to boat Heatsinks - sounds logical to me...
3. Häh - SRM were dumbfire in Canon too. And you can meet me in my Cat - I blow you up on SRM Max Range. Just take Artemis.
4. Is your Post a secret ECM whining Post?
5. Only Point in your Post I agree with you. BAP should brake ECM.
6. Same as Point 4... SSRM are hitting 100% atm cause before that they were nearly useless.
7. Ever fired wit an UAC/5? Unjammable? Only when you have 2 or 3 and don´t use RapidFire...
8. 2 Damage would be too much. They should give the MG slightly more DMG.
9. You are ranting about doubed Armor and than complain about DHS? Maybe you should think before you post?
10. Let me say only one Word: BETA.
Aha like Duke Nukem Forever? Because the Duke had so many Canon they could break or what?
If you want to play a Game that has 1:1 Rules like the Tabletop, the I have a nice Solution for you: Play the Tabletop Game!
I play the TT myself and I´m an big Fan of the Rules, but this is no Boardgame, it´s not Turnbased - so they will have to change certain Things.
P.S.: I German ther is a Word for Persons like you: "Paragraphenreiter"...
Edited by Balfor, 13 March 2013 - 12:24 AM.
6 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users
