57 replies to this topic

[Renthrak]

Jestun, on 11 May 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

I'd say it's a good example of how making a good niche game rather than trying to pander to mass-market isn't necessarily the failure that some people seem to think it is.

I am a backer of Star Citizen since its original fundraising campaign last year. I agree completely.

The reason I am suggesting that too much adherence to 'realism' in MWO could be a problem is the game format itself. If it were a single-player game, I would want it to go as far into simulation territory as possible, including actuator damage from terrain and pilot health effects. MWO is exclusively multiplayer, however, which carries its own issues, particularly with the current incarnation of the genre.

With things like network latency, client computer specs, broadband connection speed, geographic player location etc. all contributing to less-than-ideal conditions, a certain degree of simulation fidelity is necessarily sacrificed in favor of less frustrating gameplay. Simply put, if I'm going to lose, I want it to be because my opponent performed better than I did, not because my 'Mech tripped on something. If I win, I want to win because my team executed better tactics, not because the enemy set their comms to the wrong frequency and couldn't coordinate.

Since I can already lose because I got hung up on a terrain glitch, or win because the enemy had a HUD bug, I don't feel that adding more ways for things to go wrong would make the game more enjoyable. I can accept my own mistakes, but it's much harder to accept losing when the cause was completely beyond my control. If MWO ever gets to the point where it runs flawlessly, putting all players on even terms, then adding more variables to the matches would be more viable.

[TexAce]

I suggested this months ago, the thread went down like axel on crack, without even one replying.

in a nutshell: What I proposed was that the reticule turns green when all weapons are aligned to hit pin-point but all weapons converge much slower.

So yes Im for it.

[MasterErrant]

Renthrak, on 10 May 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

The entire point of using the novels as a reference is because they diverge from the TT rules. It serves as a template for "how far can we go from the rule book and still be 'BattleTech'?" It's an example of the form of combat that the TT rules are intended to portray.

MechWarriors aren't sitting in the cockpit of their BattleMech counting distance by hexes, rolling dice before they shoot, and patiently waiting for the opponent to finish their turn before taking action. Using turn-based pen and paper rules to simulate real-time combat is necessarily imperfect. If we apply a literal interpretation of rules that are already an approximation of something else, it's just stacking compromises over other compromises until the rules themselves are all that remains, and what the rules were trying to represent is lost.

Since we're translating a form of combat into a computer game, it will be necessary to make compromises to make it work. Those compromises are going to be very different from the compromises needed to translate it to a turn-based system. Literally translating from the novels wouldn't work either. The 'Mech's computer handles most of the work in the novels, pilots become fatigued and make mistakes, lucky shots damage various 'Mech systems through armor, smoke from fried wires or a cracked canopy make a pilot's eyes burn, 'Mechs take a bad step on rough terrain and damage an actuator, armor sloughing off under weapon fire interferes with balance, and so on. That doesn't sound very fun for a multiplayer video game.

At best, existing material should be used as a guideline, and that's what I'm using the fiction for. The TT rules don't have to be the exclusive basis for MWO.

my comment about novels is more about tech than game mechanics... they routinely protay stuff that exists in the real world but does not in the BT universe.

[Renthrak]

MasterErrant, on 11 May 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

my comment about novels is more about tech than game mechanics... they routinely protay stuff that exists in the real world but does not in the BT universe.

Ah, I see. What kinds of things, specifically? I've been reading over the basic TT rulebook, but nothing has really stood out to me yet.

It could be possible that I haven't read the specific books that contain these discrepancies, or otherwise missed them. If you have some specific examples, I would like to check.

[Thomas Covenant]

Wow this is an important topic. While this suggestion may seem like "randomness", it will definitely take skill to hold down and achieve better locks. This helps (I believe, going on a theoretical limb) help lights regain some survivability after the weapon rewinds, makes pop tarting more skill based, and IMHO adds some flavor that would not only improve the aesthetic feel of combat, but increase the depth of MWO. Any good game is quick to learn and has depth to master. Your ideas and study demand attention.

[Renthrak]

Thomas Covenant, on 12 May 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

This helps (I believe, going on a theoretical limb) help lights regain some survivability after the weapon rewinds, makes pop tarting more skill based, and IMHO adds some flavor that would not only improve the aesthetic feel of combat, but increase the depth of MWO.

That is my intention.

Earlier in Beta, convergence was an interesting mechanic in MWO. Unfortunately, as there was no indication of the state of your weapon convergence, firing too early simply appeared as your weapons firing in some random direction that made no sense. Naturally, this led to quite a bit of frustration.

I hope that, if it is clear what your state of convergence is at any given time, the system itself can be used to improve the feel of the game without major modifications.

[Circles End]

I fully endorse this product and/or service.

[Destoroyah]

I think the general idea has merit.

The way I see it is they can make it a bit like the old convergence idea where if you were say a poptert hugging a building and fired as soon as you cleared the building your firepower will cross right in front of you as they haven't adjusted to the new distance yet.

Something similar can be adopted where they could remove the need too lead targets to hit them. OK TO PRE-EMPT THE "IT TAKES AWAY THE SKILL CROWD" HEAR ME OUT. Instead make convergence focus on the mech hitboxes and distance. I'd say distance would be 50%-75% of the convergence equation where your adjust your weapons to the range of the target and the rest would be hitbox focused so for those perfect pinpoint shots you got too keep a hitbox targeted on a mech long enough. Also the time of distance convergence would be altered based on distance so the farther the target the longer it takes too reach nominal performance. So the skill comes in having a steady hand and good aiming ability.

Like lets the example of a HNK 4P the hunch lasers would be configured in a 6 point star that expands and contracts and shifts from the upper right corner of the targeting reticle to the center. So if I was close to a object then break cover to find a mech say 300m then I'd have a large starish on the upper right of the reticle, but as I aim it at my target it contracts and starts to drift the star to the center of the reticle. Now if I can keep on target of a specific hitbox long enough say 1-2 secs I can get pinpoint fire, but if my hand ain't so steady I'm more likely to have my lasers fire in a small box like thing which might end up hitting multiple locations.

For this too work each weapon firing location would need it's own aim indicator visible so you know what your current state of convergence is. This would make faster mechs more viable again cause they would be harder too land good alphas on cause it's harder too keep the range and hitbox targeting constant and snipers and particularly poptarts will find it much more difficult to land pinpoint damage and are more likely to get a spread hit.
They could maybe adopt the same system for missles so if I target a mech and keep them targeted I'll get a tigher spread on impact and if using a tag/artemis can also dictate where I want the missles to focus. or if I was like a light with a 2x SRM6 if I got say behind a target and took a few extra seconds on my aiming I could get a fairly tight spread maybe even as tight as the old closed beta SRMs if I had artemis installed too. They could maybe even allow NARC too have a little targetable icon on the mech that if you target it your missles will aim for the beacon so a well placed narc is dangerous for the narced.

[Kit10]

What is suggested in the OP is such a straightforward and elegant fix to the issues with alpha, convergence, pinpoint damage, and poptarting that I hope it's implemented immediately. Sniping would still occur, but turret matches probably decline significantly. Survivability receives a stealth buff across the board as hits are dispersed across more armor facings, helping every weight class (lights are hit less, assaults soak more damage). High heat weapons are stealth nerfed relative to low heat weapons as fights would increase in time duration, keeping more boat builds at/near heat cap.

If I could like your post any more, I'd be licking it.

[Renthrak]

Kit10, on 13 May 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

What is suggested in the OP is such a straightforward and elegant fix to the issues with alpha, convergence, pinpoint damage, and poptarting that I hope it's implemented immediately.

My goal whenever I look for a potential solution to a problem is efficiency. That is, I look for the simplest and easiest change that would produce the most significant result. The change should only be as complex as necessary to produce a useful result. (This is one of the reasons that I haven't put forward much in the way of heat system changes yet).

I would rather change a couple of variables to improve an existing system, rather than propose throwing it away completely and building something new from the ground up. The down side to that approach is that it often takes more effort to figure out how to make the existing system do something different, as opposed to coming up with a new system that performs the desired function from the beginning. Still, as long as people can handle a giant wall of text, I think it's worth it in the end.

Edited by Renthrak, 14 May 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Tying convergence to targeting would have some interesting implications for scouts. You would directly benefit snipers as well as LRM boats by spotting targets and keeping them targeted by maintaining convergence for them.

Oh man, kind of off-topic, but imagine if targeting a mech someone is spotting overlayed a wireframe view of them on your HUD if you currently don't have LOS with them. Accurate shooting through dense fog, snow, and trees would be possible.

[Renthrak]

Kaeb Odellas, on 20 May 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

Tying convergence to targeting would have some interesting implications for scouts. You would directly benefit snipers as well as LRM boats by spotting targets and keeping them targeted by maintaining convergence for them.

Oh man, kind of off-topic, but imagine if targeting a mech someone is spotting overlayed a wireframe view of them on your HUD if you currently don't have LOS with them. Accurate shooting through dense fog, snow, and trees would be possible.

That sounds like a good way to make C3 computers useful, even with the target data sharing in MWO.

[Shae Starfyre]

I like this idea too; it would be neat to see some HUD mock ups where the weapons convergence before firing is realized, and see how they come together.

With multiple load outs, some may come together faster allow for judicial firing, where-as, like the OP says, the longer you wait the more pin-point those convergences become.

[cyberFluke]

Jestun, on 11 May 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

[/size] Not to you perhaps. Star Citizen is like that. A space sim where your ship's maneuverability is dynamically decided by your ships loadout. The thrusters equipped (4 on top, 4 on bottom, main engine on the rear) all have their own stats and act like real thrusters. Taking damage on one or two of them will cause a very realistic loss of maneuverability. The weight and balance of your components and cargo will also effect how your ship flies as it alters the balance of the ship. And so on. Arcade vs. simulation is a preference, not right or wrong. That game is going for 100% crowd funding so that it doesn't have to compromise for a publisher who expects mass-market appeal and can instead make a damn good niche game. As of right now they have raised US$9,566,587 via kickstarter & pre-order items, etc. Website: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/ I'd say it's a good example of how making a good niche game rather than trying to pander to mass-market isn't necessarily the failure that some people seem to think it is.

Ba-Ding!

Give this man a gold effing internet. Brother, you are preaching to the choir here. I agree perfectly that MW:O could and indeed should, have been so much more than the mediocre, watered down shooter we're getting.

I'm still here fighting ignorance and trying to get people to see reason, a somewhat futile effort seeing as the people that matter will never see this and make the game what it make the game what it could be. They're too tied up in making profit now, PGIGP's beancounters sat up and took notice when they made millions from founders packs, now they're taking a much more hands on approach to managing the game direction. A washout by the looks of it :'(

[Renthrak]

cyberFluke, on 26 May 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

I'm still here fighting ignorance and trying to get people to see reason, a somewhat futile effort seeing as the people that matter will never see this and make the game what it make the game what it could be. They're too tied up in making profit now, PGIGP's beancounters sat up and took notice when they made millions from founders packs, now they're taking a much more hands on approach to managing the game direction. A washout by the looks of it :'(

What they should pay attention to is that Star Citizen made twice as much as the Founders program, and the game doesn't even exist yet. Just recently, SC made three quarters of a million in a week with a $5 pledge upgrade promotion.

Cater to the hardcore fan base and the rest will come in time. Still, it makes me grin that SC doesn't have to share a cent with a publisher.

[Renthrak]

Well, the poll has been up for a month, and the results are pretty good.

78% in favor of the idea is a pretty strong margin, with only 14% solidly opposed.

Hopefully my question about the current state of convergence will be answered in the latest Ask the Devs, so we'll have some idea where we stand.

[Renthrak]

Renthrak, on 29 May 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Hopefully my question about the current state of convergence will be answered in the latest Ask the Devs, so we'll have some idea where we stand.

My request for the current status and future plans for convergence wasn't selected, but blinkin's question about using convergence as a balance mechanic for high Alpha Strikes and boating was. In short, it's an option.

[ExtremeA79]

Renthrak, on 11 May 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

I am a backer of Star Citizen since its original fundraising campaign last year. I agree completely.

The reason I am suggesting that too much adherence to 'realism' in MWO could be a problem is the game format itself. If it were a single-player game, I would want it to go as far into simulation territory as possible, including actuator damage from terrain and pilot health effects. MWO is exclusively multiplayer, however, which carries its own issues, particularly with the current incarnation of the genre.

With things like network latency, client computer specs, broadband connection speed, geographic player location etc. all contributing to less-than-ideal conditions, a certain degree of simulation fidelity is necessarily sacrificed in favor of less frustrating gameplay. Simply put, if I'm going to lose, I want it to be because my opponent performed better than I did, not because my 'Mech tripped on something. If I win, I want to win because my team executed better tactics, not because the enemy set their comms to the wrong frequency and couldn't coordinate.

Since I can already lose because I got hung up on a terrain glitch, or win because the enemy had a HUD bug, I don't feel that adding more ways for things to go wrong would make the game more enjoyable. I can accept my own mistakes, but it's much harder to accept losing when the cause was completely beyond my control. If MWO ever gets to the point where it runs flawlessly, putting all players on even terms, then adding more variables to the matches would be more viable.

this is a good idea, should be implemented.