148 replies to this topic

[Noobzorz]

For an example of why the OP's statement is ABSOLUTELY NOT axiomatic, compare Call of Duty or Medal of Honor to Halo or Quake III.

Is it true in Mechwarrior? Almost certainly not, but maybe. I happen to think that there is a happy middle ground. But the OPs rationale is totally wrong, and if he happened to be correct that faster combat is better for Mechwarrior, it would have been through dumb luck, not clever analysis.

[MuKen]

I didn't say it was axiomatic, I provided reasoning. If you'd like to address any of it, I'd be happy to have a conversation about it.

[Commander Kobold]

Nonsense, on 28 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Longer combat times gives newbs time to fumble around and kill a high-skill player

then maybe he's not as skilled as he thinks he is also your paintball comparison is invalid as one painball player can easily wipe out an entire team since he only needs to hit you once.

Edited by Omni 13, 28 March 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Nonsense, on 28 March 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

You mean like the most popular PC FPS of all time (a mod), and the predecessor to all the CoD/BF style shooters, Counter-Strike? A game that had no XP, unlocks, or anything like that?

Oddly enough, doesn't Counter-Strike implement cone of fire?

Quote

People (myself included) carefully pointed out why you continue to be wrong on that subject.

You have tried and failed. The Devs have stated that 'Mechs are dying too fast for their liking. Just like in Beta. Their terrible fix (double armor) has done nothing for that but encourage the shift towards grouped big-alpha damage as I predicted.

Pinpoint precision is the reason. There is no way to fix this problem without implementing weapon spread. I said this 9 months ago. I said this 10 years ago (with MW4). It will still be true tomorrow.

Everything I stated in my post has come to pass. The current rage against AC40 boats is just the next version of this.

[Fishbulb333]

MadcatX, on 28 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

. Add to that the fact that after you die, you have to stay for the entire match to get your reward.

This is false....you don't lose the cbill/xp reward for leaving after having died early, you just need to wait until the game ends (when your mech is ready again) and you'll get it.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Faster kill combat is'nt deeper gameplay if that's what you mean.

[Nonsense]

HRR Insanity, on 28 March 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Oddly enough, doesn't Counter-Strike implement cone of fire?



You have tried and failed. The Devs have stated that 'Mechs are dying too fast for their liking. Just like in Beta. Their terrible fix (double armor) has done nothing for that but encourage the shift towards grouped big-alpha damage as I predicted.

Pinpoint precision is the reason. There is no way to fix this problem without implementing weapon spread. I said this 9 months ago. I said this 10 years ago (with MW4). It will still be true tomorrow.

Everything I stated in my post has come to pass. The current rage against AC40 boats is just the next version of this.

CS never had "cone of fire". Weapons became more inaccurate at higher rates of fire, but it was consistent and predictable, which added a skill to the game. Ironically, when the source engine version was released, the predictable spread was made into a random cone (among other things) and the competitive scene died.

As I said before, i agree with you that.a problem exists, i just don't agree with your solution. The cone removes skill by introducing randomness, which decreases the skill gap between noobs and veterans and kills competition.

Edited by Nonsense, 28 March 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[Imagine Dragons]

PANZERBUNNY, on 28 March 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

Faster kill combat is'nt deeper gameplay if that's what you mean.

Not exactly sure how anybody can come to that conclusion...

[HRR Insanity]

Nonsense, on 28 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

CS never had "cone of fire". Weapons became more inaccurate at higher rates of fire, but it was consistent and predictable, which added a skill to the game. Ironically, when the source engine version was released, the predictable spread was made into a random cone (among other things) and the competitive scene died.

As I said before, i agree with you that.a problem exists, i just don't agree with your solution. The cone removes skill by introducing randomness, which decreases the skill gap between noobs and veterans and kills competition.

Inaccurate fire is a feature of cone of fire. If factors within your control affect the degree of inaccuracy, then that's perfect. I've proposed previously having an inherent inaccuracy for groups of weapons only. This would be a function of heat, speed, movement type (jumping/walking/running), and # of weapon being fired in the group. All of those choices are pilot choices. If you have no heat, fire a limited # of weapons while moving slowly... you may have a very minimal innaccuracy/weapon spread. Just like CS. Managing all those factors and setting up a good shot... that's true skill. Or, as I've suggested, you could just fire one weapon and that weapon would be perfectly accurate.

Bam. Balanced game.

[TOGSolid]

HRR Insanity, on 28 March 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Inaccurate fire is a feature of cone of fire. If factors within your control affect the degree of inaccuracy, then that's perfect. I've proposed previously having an inherent inaccuracy for groups of weapons only. This would be a function of heat, speed, movement type (jumping/walking/running), and # of weapon being fired in the group. All of those choices are pilot choices. If you have no heat, fire a limited # of weapons while moving slowly... you may have a very minimal innaccuracy/weapon spread. Just like CS. Managing all those factors and setting up a good shot... that's true skill. Or, as I've suggested, you could just fire one weapon and that weapon would be perfectly accurate.

Bam. Balanced game.

I've been wanting to see the inclusion of a system that rewards players for having to slow down and aim properly for a while. Making lasers only be pinpoint once you've aimed long enough for your fixed hardpoint lasers to converge for the range would be a great addition as well. Arm mounted weapons having much faster convergence would allow for more interesting mech construction.

[Khobai]

Disagree with OP completely. And the problem is going to get far worse when 12v12 is introduced. If you think focus fire is bad now wait till its 50% worse. Same goes for clan tech, because those clan erppcs do 50% more damage.

I dont know how many of you have actually played Battletech, but you dont have to hide behind cover constantly fearing being alphastriked, and dying in two or three volleys to your center torso. Battletech is NOTHING like that. That game is called Heavy Gear. MWO currently resembles Heavy Gear more than it does Battletech because of the absurd alphastrike damage, the lack of proper armor, and the fact speed and cover are the most important aspects to staying alive. Again, that's not Battletech...

And faster kills is not deeper gameplay. It's just devolved into drill the other guys' torso out as fast as you can. We dont even give consideration to blowing off arms or blowing off the legs of any mech that isn't a Light. There is nothing tactical or deep about that. That is shallow gameplay because most of the hit locations don't even matter except the torso locations... either because they contain most of the mech's weapons or because it's the fastest way to kill the mech. In a real tactical game, every hit location would be worth targetting at least some of the time, and MWO lacks that.

Quote

I speak as an avid paintball player. In paintball, positioning, lines of fire and battle-lines, and flanking maneuvers are the lifeblood of the game. This is possible because it is one-shot-one-kill.

Battletech is nothing like paintball. Mechs do not die in one hit. In fact getting hit is pretty much guaranteed and unavoidable in Battletech. The skill aspect of the game is in mitigating as much of the incoming damage as possible using movement and cover while maximizing as much of your outgoing damage as possible by managing heat and firing at the right ranges. Mechs are meant to take a lot of punishment and whoever weathers that punishment better wins; its mostly a game of attrition. Again, if you want a mech game that resembles paintball, you want to play Heavy Gear, not Battletech.

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2013 - 09:51 PM.

[Brilig]

Don't get me wrong, I like twitch shooters too. MechWarrior hasn't ever been one though. I don't want it to become one. I like big stompy robots that take and dish out tons of damage. Its fun.

The game is also not any less strategic because it takes longer to kill someone. It does put more emphasis on team play, and less on lone wolfing though.

[Urdnot Mau]

I'm reading the 5th line and i imagine this: From now on paintball is not a one-shot-one-kill game. You actually have to think twice before you move your feet and you can't "rambo" the other team. Now you realize you can't be the hero of the match and you have to work with you team. Does that sound anything like MWO to you ?

Now think about this: In this new paintball bigger weapons are allowed. Some people can carry BIG weapons that fire BIG balls that are equivalent to 5 times your weapon. You see one guy in the open and you get out of cover to shoot him. Before you shoot him 5 times he shot you 2 times. This means you are now dead and he is alive and kicking.

This is the current state of MWO. NOT ALL PEOPLE CAN AFFORD those cheese high alpha builds or they just like to play medium/light mechs. We know that not all mechs can allow those cheese builds. Should they change their playstyle and stay in cover for the whole match? OH, WAIT. DUAL AC/20 CAN FIRE AT CLOSE RANGE TOO. Should we all use longe range weapons? oh, wait. Not all mechs can effectively run good long range builds. Brawlers Now they die more often and they lose components faster. Is this MWO ? A race for the better firepower?? Ignore the tactics of outnumbering an oponent and etc? Is this "TACTIC" you name a "RAMBO" tactic?? Walk around the map on you own if you DUAL AC/20 to kill 4 medium mechs of the other team?

I feel like i made a very silly analogy to paintball. Maybe it's because what you said is silly. This is just not paintball. You shouldn't even have had said that. I also feel like i said too much and that nothing is going to change the mind of those who like AC/40 jaggers and Quad ERPPC Stalkers because they feel like this is some kind of COD for mechs or some other crap.

[TOGSolid]

To quote myself from a different thread about the same topic:

Quote

I like how everyone is going crazy suggesting off the wall things like damage reductions and armor buffs instead of just doing the obvious thing and suggesting heat scale penalties like there are in tabletop. You want to blast your heat through the roof with one giant alpha strike? Good for you! Enjoy dealing with increasing penalties to your mech's performance.

We don't have to get quite a precise as TT does, but it can be used as a rough base. Sluggish movement in the form of reduced speed and/or turning/twist speed and a reduced fire rate are things that could quite easily be incorporated into the game without interfering with any existing systems. Ammo explosions could be left out since they'd be a bit rough on newer players and we don't want to make the learning curve too crazy. It would introduce another layer of skillful mech building and piloting that won't require a PHD to understand as well. "If you heat up too much, your mech runs like ****." It's pretty easy to understand. Players can continue to enjoy building high risk alpha mechs if they choose but they'll do so at a greater risk. Pilots who build well balanced mechs will reap the rewards of running cool.

[Urdnot Mau]

TOGSolid, on 28 March 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

To quote myself from a different thread about the same topic:

or just bring some extra heat generated from carrying more than a certain number of the same weapon.

[Khobai]

Quote

I like how everyone is going crazy suggesting off the wall things like damage reductions and armor buffs instead of just doing the obvious thing and suggesting heat scale penalties like there are in tabletop. You want to blast your heat through the roof with one giant alpha strike? Good for you! Enjoy dealing with increasing penalties to your mech's performance.

That would requite a complete overhaul of the entire heat system.

Heat penalties would be completely meaningless with the current dissipation rates... because the penalties would only last for a few seconds at most. So you would have to slow heat dissipation considerably to make the penalties more appreciable.

[Sephlock]

Karr285, on 28 March 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

If this was true at all they would not have doubled Armour PERIOD.

So I take it you were in favor of the initial version of Artemis missiles? I mean they wouldn't implement some changes if it wasn't the right thing to do right? Right?

[Brilig]

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

That would requite a complete overhaul of the entire heat system.

Heat penalties would be completely meaningless with the current dissipation rates... because the penalties would only last for a few seconds at most. So you would have to slow heat dissipation considerably to make the penalties more appreciable.

I dunno added performance penalties on top of the risk of shut down high heat alpha strike builds already have might work out. Longer weapon recycles at high heat levels (longer between alphas.) could go a long way too.

[Training Instructor]

The speed at which high alpha builds can blow out a CT is a bit ridiculous.

You've got Jagermechs with arms that are 10 meters apart, and which have ZERO side to side movement, converging on center torsos from 50 meters away.

This is a problem.

[Fitzbattleaxe]

MuKen, on 28 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

A common complaint about alpha strike builds, and pinpoint aiming in general, is that battles are "too short", and more protracted build-up-the-damage style fighting is more fun. Maybe some people find this to be so, but the truth is taking a long time to down an opponent reduces the strategic and intellectual component of this game.

A bold statement.

Quote

I speak as an avid paintball player. In paintball, positioning, lines of fire and battle-lines, and flanking maneuvers are the lifeblood of the game. This is possible because it is one-shot-one-kill. If a fast player manages to get to a key flanking position, he can wipe out multiple opponents and doom the enemy team. This threat forces both teams to carefully watch battle lines and be aware of the "bigger game" at all times.

I don't see how high-alpha is required for this. Positioning is important regardless of how your damage spreads, flanking is valuable for sighting enemies, splitting their forces, and forcing them to worry about their rear armor (which is weak no matter what weapons you use, or how you fire them).

Quote

In mechwarrior, this is harder. If a lone unit manages to get completely behind enemy lines, he's still not entirely guaranteed to take down an opponent UNLESS he's got a good alpha build. He's certainly not able to take down multiple guys in his moment of surprise.

There are 8 people to a team. If a lone mech can quickly take down multiple enemies, then the tide of battle will shift too quickly, and the game will end before it has a chance to get interesting. Now yes, it is true that good positioning takes a lot of skill, and that it may take some time to flank the opponent effectively, but it's also true that sometimes a Stalker can get lucky, and blow an entire side torso of a Hunchback by twitch firing at the right moment.

Quote

In most situations, he might do slightly more than his own value in damage to the enemy team before they turn around and wipe him out because he's alone (unless he's a light). If an assault mech manages to get into such a position, this should be a huge feat, and he should be rewarded for this clever maneuver by doing massive damage to the enemy team as a whole.

Now I guess this depends on what builds we're talking about. Stalkers and jump snipers aren't generally maneuvering anywhere. They're staying back, and waiting for someone to walk over a hill. For AC-20 Jagers, and Splatapults, there is a bit more skill required to get close to the enemy, but still not enough I think to justify their comparative effectiveness. Most fights degenerate to a brawl at some point, and the Splatapult pilot will get to fire to no matter how good a pilot they are.

My general complaint about high alpha builds is that they limit variability. They limit variability in builds, because some builds are just clearly more effective within a certain skill range, and so people aren't going to experiment as much. Yes, I acknowledge that a good player can easily handle most such builds if they know what they're doing, but in an average match, with average players, it is the case that the high alpha builds are going to be significantly better. They also tend to limit the variability in the outcome of encounters on the battle field because they're very specialized. If a Hunchback is heading toward a 6 PPC Stalker, one of two general outcomes will occur. Either the Stalker will land a hit on the Hunchback while it's still at range, and cripple the thing, or the Hunchback will get close enough to render the Stalker ineffective. One or the other. Whereas if you have something equipped with U/ACs, I find it a lot more exciting. They can hit me at range, but they're also devastating up close. Unless they jam. Maybe I get hit a few times, and it hurts enough that I have to change what I'm doing, but not so much that it decides the whole encounter. There's a lot more that can happen. Just my opinion, of course, but that's the general idea of why I find high alpha builds boring. And not just to face, mind you, but also to pilot. I tried playing a gausscat for awhile back in closed beta. Found the whole experience incredibly repetitive.

Edited by Fitzbattleaxe, 28 March 2013 - 10:33 PM.