378 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

Noobzorz, on 14 April 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

I definitely think the OPs suggestion is ridiculous, and his "defences" of it seem like desperate efforts to earn the insults everyone is throwing at him, but I would be remiss if I didn't say that I definitely think that 6 PPC stalkers are kind of over the top. I find the Dragon, paradoxically, to be one of the mechs that is better at not getting killed by 6 PPC stalkers, since its fast and maneuverable, and you have to lead targets by a healthy margin to nail them with PPCs when they're fast movers. Instead, when I get spanked by a stalker with a jillion PPCs its in something bigger and heavier where you cannot escape and pinging you with it is easy.

Hex stalkers are bad, and quad stalkers are far, far more dangerous.

[Targetloc]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

But they didn't, and the ones people take seriously all use math or actual accuracy. Quake 3, for instance. You hit where you aim. Even counter-strike has the exact same spray pattern every single time you spray.

You're saying you want MWO to be more like call of duty, and Mario kart, essentially.

Those 'other games' actually use math too. Quite a bit of it. You can learn something about it here:
http://symthic.com/bf3-accuracy-plots

Quake 3 was a tournament style arena shooter, not really trying to simulate anything.

Counter-Strike is one of my favorite games of all time, but identical bullet spreads isn't very realistic... Go to the range every weekend for 10 years and I doubt you could make a full-auto burst land 5 shots in the same pattern twice, even with a decade of practice.

Sometimes random is more realistic than a fully deterministic system. The more important question is whether its good for the game.

[Vassago Rain]

Targetloc, on 14 April 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Those 'other games' actually use math too. Quite a bit of it. You can learn something about it here:
http://symthic.com/bf3-accuracy-plots

Quake 3 was a tournament style arena shooter, not really trying to simulate anything.

Counter-Strike is one of my favorite games of all time, but identical bullet spreads isn't very realistic... Go to the range every weekend for 10 years and I doubt you could make a full-auto burst land 5 shots in the same pattern twice, even with a decade of practice.

Sometimes random is more realistic than a fully deterministic system. The more important question is whether its good for the game.

It's not about realism, but about creating a system where you can simulate skill, and the effect it has. I would argue that counter-strike is more of an attempt at simulating reality than call of duty ever will be, no matter how many times they remake it, or how many cute features they add, like more 'holding your breath' mechanics for sniper rifles.

[torgian]

Or we could go for the following: FOllow what the novels describe the fighting as.

I remember several instances where pilots had to wait for a solid lock before firing. This "solid gold lock" meant that the weapons had gained a solid lock on the target. There was also a "red" and "yellow" that I read a couple times, where red was no solid lock, and yellow was a medium lock. Pilots could still fire during these lock phases, but the accuracy was reduced.

[Vassago Rain]

torgian, on 14 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Or we could go for the following: FOllow what the novels describe the fighting as.

I remember several instances where pilots had to wait for a solid lock before firing. This "solid gold lock" meant that the weapons had gained a solid lock on the target. There was also a "red" and "yellow" that I read a couple times, where red was no solid lock, and yellow was a medium lock. Pilots could still fire during these lock phases, but the accuracy was reduced.

Okay.

Let's go for karate robots that snap to cover against buildings, like they're macross valkyries, and atlases that can do hand stands.

[Targetloc]

Malora Sidewinder, on 14 April 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

It's not them, and they don't need nerfing. the crosshair thing is just about the stupidest idea i've seen in 6 months in terms of this game. Seriously, increasing crosshair size with HEAT? This is *not* call of duty. Please don't try to make it such.

No, it's not call of duty. It's a mech game. And mechs are less accurate when they run hot. That's straight out of the canon. So probably not the stupidest idea ever... but feel free to continue hating it.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Targetloc, on 14 April 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Those 'other games' actually use math too. Quite a bit of it. You can learn something about it here:
http://symthic.com/bf3-accuracy-plots

Quake 3 was a tournament style arena shooter, not really trying to simulate anything.

Counter-Strike is one of my favorite games of all time, but identical bullet spreads isn't very realistic... Go to the range every weekend for 10 years and I doubt you could make a full-auto burst land 5 shots in the same pattern twice, even with a decade of practice.

Sometimes random is more realistic than a fully deterministic system. The more important question is whether its good for the game.

You're mistaking the math used behind the beaten zone of automatic and semi-automatic weapons fire, which attempts to simulate the recoil, ballistics etc with the ability to put one's first round on target in modern FPS.

In BF3, if YOU have the skill, the first round will always go where you aim it to go, within the ballistic arc limitations of weapon ranges. The additional rounds pattern out to the beaten zone, which is what the smythic site is referring to in nearly all cases.

That's apples to the oranges of MWO, where people are complaining about the pinpoint, high damage alpha's that we commonly see employed.

That being said, it's still not a problem for what seems to be most people IF these forums be any indication. Just a vocal few that feel randomness would somehow add skill to the game.

I think people need to look at the overall game and match mechanics holistically and see that while high alpha's are a danger, and boating efficiencies can be lethal, the game isn't played on a flat surface where people can't turn their torso's or maneuver. The dangers are mitigated by smart tactical play and positioning. More skill inherent to that than most run-and-gun FPS games by large measure imo.

[Vassago Rain]

Actual skill on display.

[Zylo]

What I see here is a player who can't counter those who are able to move and fire with high accuracy. As others have said random chances to hit a larger area does nothing to increase skill, in fact it just encourages "spray and pray" type gameplay.

Your suggestions would just move players in the direction of using locking weapons to compensate for the random aiming. It's interesting that you mention screen shake while being hit as this was an effect that was too strong in the past on the SSRM2 which was part of the reason the Streak cat A1 was so powerful before ECM was added. What you are suggesting would make it very difficult for non-ballistic designs to fight back when being hit. This is a terrible idea for game balance.

Poptart jump sniper issues could be fixed by greatly increasing the recharge time on the jump jets and requiring a full set of jumpjets to get off the ground. This would also prevent future issues that might make DFA too easy if jumpjets recharge too fast.

[cyberFluke]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

He's a classic scrublord. I've dealt with them for as long as I can remember. They should stick to games that cater to them, like Mario kart, where there's a skill ceiling, so people who are 'too good' can't use their skills to win, and even the worst player can RNG his way to a blue shell and 'win.'

[REDACTED] Streaming Live now at twitch.tv/cyberfluke

Edited by Viterbi, 17 April 2013 - 03:06 PM.
Removed directed statement

[Royalewithcheese]

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 14 April 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[cyberFluke]

[Purplefluffybunny]

Almost all of these balance issues we have, have happened before with previous incarnations of mechwarrior. It won't be fixed becasue it can't be fixed with the current attitude to development.

EDIT: What is worse is that this is a multiplayer only game, so all of these issues will be exaggerated as we don't have a single player game to retreat to.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 14 April 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[Aklor]

To those of you that want "more skill" added to MWO. buy and master the lesser appealing mechs. It will clearly take more skill to do well with them

[Zylo]

Purplefluffybunny, on 14 April 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

Almost all of these balance issues we have, have happened before with previous incarnations of mechwarrior. It won't be fixed becasue it can't be fixed with the current attitude to development.

EDIT: What is worse is that this is a multiplayer only game, so all of these issues will be exaggerated as we don't have a single player game to retreat to.

I don't think this is true since MWO is online only. If game balance problems are resulting in a loss of players (I suspect matchmaking problems in phase 3 caused player loss) then PGI is forced to act by attempting to fix the problem. Matchmaker phase 3 probably has caused player loss which is why PGI is acting to fix matchmaker with phase 4 returning weight class matching as well as fixes to the Elo rating system.

Sniping in general was already nerfed a bit by changes to thermal vision. PGI probably didn't just make this change without considering the improvement in game balance. If jump sniping becomes a serious problem then PGI will probably make adjustments in the form of jumpjet changes or crosshair movement while using jumpjets.

If the game was single player, what incentive would PGI have to fix any balance issues?

Edited by Zylo, 14 April 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Aklor, on 14 April 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

To those of you that want "more skill" added to MWO. buy and master the lesser appealing mechs. It will clearly take more skill to do well with them

Agreed.

[Purplefluffybunny]

I don't know Zylo. Most balance issues occur when the player is given free reign to build their mechs or decide on a loadout/weapon combination (other games included too). In the context of single player it is not like the AI, upon death, goes "OMFG!! That is so OP!!!111". With multiplayer complaints about balance and actual balance issues are more amplified. If it helps I will just say that this is an IMO.

EDIT: playing 8 v 8 matches of late makes me think I am playing laserwarrior online (not true of everyone I know).

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 14 April 2013 - 03:40 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Purplefluffybunny, on 14 April 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I don't know Zylo. Most balance issues occur when the player is given free reign to build their mechs or decide on a loadout/weapon combination (other games included too). In the context of single player it is not like the AI, upon death, goes "OMFG!! That is so OP!!!111". With multiplayer complaints about balance and actual balance issues are more amplified. If it helps I will just say that this is an IMO.

EDIT: playing 8 v 8 matches of late makes me think I am playing laserwarrior online (not true of everyone I know).

Not really. There's no wall that prevents you from taking a quad PPC stalker to counter my quad PPC stalker. Then we can have epic ridgehumping contests that last 15 minutes!

The real problem is that the game doesn't give the players a large enough toolbox, so before they made SRMs bad, all brawlers ever had the same config, all snipers ever had the same config, and there's no such thing as a support mech.

If they actually wanted to, we'd have LBXs that do tons of damage up close, and SRMs, and pulse lasers that deal more damage the closer you are to the target, streaks would require some kind of interaction, ER large lasers wouldn't be inferior to PPCs... You get the idea.

[cyberFluke]

Purplefluffybunny, on 14 April 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Agreed.

I pilot mostly Awesomes, that [Redacted] don't fly here.

Edited by Egomane, 15 April 2013 - 12:55 AM.
Language

[Purplefluffybunny]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Not really. There's no wall that prevents you from taking a quad PPC stalker to counter my quad PPC stalker. Then we can have epic ridgehumping contests that last 15 minutes!

The real problem is that the game doesn't give the players a large enough toolbox, so before they made SRMs bad, all brawlers ever had the same config, all snipers ever had the same config, and there's no such thing as a support mech.

If they actually wanted to, we'd have LBXs that do tons of damage up close, and SRMs, and pulse lasers that deal more damage the closer you are to the target, streaks would require some kind of interaction, ER large lasers wouldn't be inferior to PPCs... You get the idea.

Yes, I get what you are getting at. A lack of balance forces us all to use certain load outs and kills variability?