203 replies to this topic

[Thomas Hogarth]

Dude42, on 29 May 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

I really wish they would go ahead and implement the heat scale from TT or at least something very similar. After all, isn't your pilot supposed to be able to roast to death. Isn't that the entire purpose of the Life Support critical slots? Not to mention the other penalties induced by high heat. That would address a lot of the balance issues with alphastriking "every turn". That's why such a system is in place in TT...

I agree heartily with your post. One thing to remember is that this mechanic, while one thing that MWO desperately needs, would not stop that initial burst of damage from hitting the same spot as it currently does. And on top of that, people might just start running similar builds that are heat neutral(I do this currently, and it's still OP as hell).

Joseph Mallan, on 29 May 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

Sorry man, but you cannot go by that name and expect to be taken seriously. Tom was/is the Poster boy of oblivious Social Generals!

This post brought a big smile to my face. It's getting more and more rare to find people that recognize the name. Early in CB, people would comment(read as heckle) my name all the time. And since I like to RP the role out in-game, it was fun for all involved.

Now it's rare to see someone that recognizes the name. In fact, it seems like the average MWO player has NO idea about the setting they're playing in. Case in point: The other day a Davion player complained that he was still being forced to shoot housemates. I replied in the only acceptable fashion: Called him a FedRat and gave my best wishes that all of the Federated Suns worlds die in fires hotter than a thousand stars.

Another player says: "But Davion isn't Federated Suns"

:|

Those that were really excited for the game and I think largely responsible for generating the hype were fans of the franchise. That's people like me and the four friends of mine that were excited about it. All of us are familiar with Battletech in general, and all of us were pretty heavily invested in the MechWarrior games, even with their flaws.

I'm the only one left. I polled three of these friends, and the results were interesting. They all had two complaints in common: Trial 'Mech system is unfair to new players since canon 'Mech configs are jokes in comparison to the customized builds possible in MWO, and the game didn't feel like a game sourced from BT as much as previous games.

The second point stunned me. I asked one of them: "Even MW4? That one went pretty far off the reservation." "Yep," he replied. "Go try MW4 again sometime. It's way more like BT. But not like BT enough. You'll see." So I took his advice and tried MW4 again. Yep. MWO drifted farther than MW4 did in terms of feeling like you're driving a 'Mech, and MW4 did a pretty miserable job as it is. Sure, MWO is better in some - even a lot - of respects, but it made other aspects even worse. Naturally, the aspects that ended up worse are the important ones in my book.

Kmieciu, on 29 May 2013 - 04:20 AM, said:

I agree with jay35. Randomness has no place in MWO. PGI - please remove the cone of fire from machine guns, LBX and SRMs. SRMs should work like in MW2/MW4: a stream of missiles that hits the same spot.

Comments like this crack me up. First off, the Battletech-themed first-person 'Mech shooter has had randomization in its history of development, so that argument isn't really defensible. But even if it were, introducing inaccuracy need not be random. There are plenty of ways to introduce inaccuracy without a random cone of fire.

To me, this seems bleedingly obvious, but yet there's this huge amount of static encountered whenever someone suggests that the game needs less accuracy.

I'm on the lower end of the skill spectrum. I'm okay with that, but the game is not. I feel like a super 'Mech sniper with the current system. It's just that freakin' easy to hit things. I don't want my lower amount of skill to be rewarded with a system that lets me feel like a CLAN WOLF JAGUAR DEST COMMANDO THAT GRADUATED WITH HONORS FROM BOTH NAGELRING AND NAIS 'MECH SNIPER SCHOOL. That's pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I don't appreciate it - even if I am the lowest common denominator.

The only explanation that I have read that makes any sense is that people DO want to be pandered to. They do want a lowest common denominator experience, and that may just be the sad future of gaming.

A future where an intelligent, deliberately paced BT-themed FPP 'Mech simulator has no place.

Edited by Thomas Hogarth, 29 May 2013 - 11:23 AM.

[Pht]

Hoaggie, on 26 May 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Bottom line, a random number is not fair to high level players.

It really depends on what you mean by "random."

There's rational, predictable, and controllable hit percentages based upon how well your mech can overcome the conditions occuring when you pull the triggers "random," which a player can control for by the means of skill, and there's "nonsense random," which nobody is saying should be used.

It seems most people don't make the distinction between the two.

Quote

And I know that some people think that higher level players need a nerf, but we aren't quite in a Harrison Bergeron world yet, some people are just better. I am nowhere near the best player, but I am better than quite a few and don't think I should get nerfed because some people are bad at the game.

... and than there's the patronizing and rude idea that those who want the 'Mechs to act like 'mechs from the BT setting only want to change the game because they suck at it.

Zyllos, on 27 May 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

I think there is one of three paths ahead at this point:

• Add some type of RNG that makes sense
  
• Remove convergence

Been proposed already: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/


Basically, the 'mechs would behave like they do in the novels.

Ralgas, on 29 May 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

The goal is quite clear, working it into the environment we have to deal with is far murkier.........

No, not really. We already have math that would make the 'mechs behave like they do in the novels without removing human skill and without making luck the core/a necessary game mechanic.

See link above in this post.

Edited by Pht, 30 May 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[MasterErrant]

Kitane, on 26 May 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Why do SRMs have a random spread in a skill-based game?

because they are designed to maximize hit prob and spread damage. besides it's physics. just the airflow shockwaves of the individual missile will spread them.

[jakucha]

Kitane, on 26 May 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Why do SRMs have a random spread in a skill-based game?

To ensure they're used at a fairly close up distance.

[One Medic Army]

MasterErrant, on 30 May 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

because they are designed to maximize hit prob and spread damage. besides it's physics. just the airflow shockwaves of the individual missile will spread them.

jakucha, on 30 May 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

To ensure they're used at a fairly close up distance.

Well, that and because in TT they were weapons which hit multiple areas of the target with each shot.

Kind of like how in TT if you shot someone with 2 PPCs they hit different locations.

[Blackadder]

Hoaggie, on 26 May 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Setting aside that mechs are robots, not effected by fatigue or random muscle movement, have you ever fired a real weapon? Modern rifles will hit the target 100% of the time if the target is inside their maximum effective range. They are precise machines, capable of preforming the same action identically thousands of times. Sure, they break down, but a complex highly accurate rifle like the M16A4 can fire over 3,000 before any major malfunction would occur, and even then with proper preventive maintenance can prevent many of those

This statement is so wrong as to be laughable, and only proves that you know little to nothing about modern firearms.

[Karl Streiger]

Every time i read dice roll...is luck... do you know that you hardly any better as Dice Rolls...
So there is allready some "randomness" in the game... the randomness how bad or good you are while shooting.

I don't think that most of your average accuracy in your stats is any better as using TT pilots.
Here the result when shots were given at 5 out of 10 at short range 3 out of 10 at medium range and 2 out of 10 at long range

gunnery: 2 avg 56.019607843137265%
gunnery: 3 avg 44.941176470588246%
gunnery: 4 avg 34.1078431372549%
gunnery: 5 avg 24.294117647058822%

Ok the more clever one will recognize that in MWO shooting at long range is hardly more as difficult as shooting at point blank.
They also recognize that if your weapons in MWO hit they hit the spot you want them to hit.

So the question is not to hit or not to hit but to determine where your shots will hit the target

[Ansel]

An RNG mechanic isn't needed. It could be implimented, and it would complement the already Half RNG system we have (BT Paperdoll)

Removal of the outdated BT Paperdoll is what is really needed.

Make weapons only deal damage in a radius of the spot they impact and not deal damage to an entire section. The "sections" could be kept, but would only be used to determine the "thickness" of that particular area and the internal componets behind it, in other words shooting the crotch dosn't hit the engine... ever. maby the Gyro but never the engine.

The radius would then be a better balancing point that is needed right now for some weapons.

The radius would also balance mech silhouettes, the awsome has large sections right, now the "point total" means you can spread "more" damage over the larger "surface area"

For example missles come to mind, if they could hit in a very large radius lets say almost the whole torso of a hunchback per missle but delt light damage they would be good for getting damage into areas that were already breached by weapons with higher damgae and a smaller radius.

Also each individual missle being able to crit a section for however many breaches in armor its radius could reach would make them more dangerous the more damage a mech has taken, making it a good crit-seeker weapon system as well, the same could even by applied to the LBX series of ACs to improve them without adding in some silly Crit RNG either.

Head sections could become a problem, but that could be easily solved by making them smaller and making multiple crits needed to destroy the mech, as in the first one breaks some glass, the second takes out some instruments, the third takes out your hud, the fourth makes your vision blurry and redish, the fifth kills you. Something like that.

[YueFei]

Thomas Hogarth, on 29 May 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Comments like this crack me up. First off, the Battletech-themed first-person 'Mech shooter has had randomization in its history of development, so that argument isn't really defensible. But even if it were, introducing inaccuracy need not be random. There are plenty of ways to introduce inaccuracy without a random cone of fire.

To me, this seems bleedingly obvious, but yet there's this huge amount of static encountered whenever someone suggests that the game needs less accuracy.

I'm on the lower end of the skill spectrum. I'm okay with that, but the game is not. I feel like a super 'Mech sniper with the current system. It's just that freakin' easy to hit things. I don't want my lower amount of skill to be rewarded with a system that lets me feel like a CLAN WOLF JAGUAR DEST COMMANDO THAT GRADUATED WITH HONORS FROM BOTH NAGELRING AND NAIS 'MECH SNIPER SCHOOL. That's pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I don't appreciate it - even if I am the lowest common denominator.

The only explanation that I have read that makes any sense is that people DO want to be pandered to. They do want a lowest common denominator experience, and that may just be the sad future of gaming.

A future where an intelligent, deliberately paced BT-themed FPP 'Mech simulator has no place.

That last sentence really sums up what this game is supposed to be about. Like you, I consider myself a mediocre pilot as well, but I can take my Catapult K2 with twin PPC and 1 gauss, and pretty much shoot forever and ever before overheating, delivering 35 damage pin-point alpha after alpha (heat efficiency of 1.73). I don't have to think much about how to manage my heat, or think about which weapons I should fire in the current situation, which range bracket gives me the most advantage, etc. Just march around, see the enemy, and then point-and-click. Sometimes I even get lucky headshots. And sometimes I manage to land 3 shots in a row in the CT and core an enemy in 8 seconds.

None of this ought to be happening unless the enemy sat there motionless and lets me shoot them.

I'm not a fan of introducing randomness to our aim because I also know the frustration of not being able to control what happens. It'd suck to aim a shot perfectly and watch it veer off into space.

I'd be fine with either:
1.) no convergence. All weapons fire in parallel. Players can either alpha the whole she-bang and watch some of it miss, and scatter hits all over the enemy. Or they can fire weapons individually, rapidly adjusting aim between shots like an exhibition shooter smashing multiple targets in under a second. Now THAT would take alot more skill, and raise the skill ceiling. And, at least the victim has a chance to maneuver to spread the damage.
2.) Small delays between different pin-point weapons firing. Lasers can still fire all together like they do now, because that's a damage-over-time that you can mitigate by moving and twisting. You could make it so if you fired the big ballistics simultaneously, the recoil would dump your mech on the ground, forcing you to fire individually. Make the recoil from the ballstics shove your crosshair into the sky and rock your mech backward, forcing you to drag the crosshairs back onto the target for the second shot.

[Voidcrafter]

Lycan, on 29 May 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Probably the part were all the weapons in that Alpha group hit separate locations and not the exact pixel that's under the targeting reticle.

Also, something that needs to be noted here.

Most of the "I want to hit where I'm aiming" crowd seems to be missing an important point in this argument/debate.

YOU are not aiming the weapons. You're telling the mech's battle computer where you would like the weapons to hit and then it's up to it to try and make it happen.

Well yea, for the first part of your comment - that's what I was trying to say exactly -
"Ooh goodie, no matter what weapon I mount, it won't hit where I aim, so why don't I just mount like the highest alpha weapons I can, so no matter where they hit to make it feel it hurt big time!".
Why shouldn't I mount any high-alpha boating weapons if that happens? I mean... all the effort spent in telling where the aiming computer should actually hit, would not matter if I'm doing it with any less caliber weapons, so why I just don't use the ones with the heavy damage instead?
True - less ammo, more heat, but if we're talking about 4+ PPCs, or 2/3(ER)PPCs + a Gauss, would it really matter if I can shoot two times in a row?
No matter where I hit there'll be body parts flying all around the map.

And another thing, if the computer does all the aiming, how can't he(or it - the computer) make some simple algorythm, that I can write on hand, with gravity and distance multiplier/reducer values, that makes your shot precise, like the warfare technology 1k years away from the current time should be logically able to do?

Aside from that - I have no issues with implementing more challenge toward the aiming - but still I fear that this change would make the things even worse than they're currently...

[RG Notch]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Ahhh, the usual "reductio ad absurdum" approach. Because any use of RNG magically becomes Dungeons and Dragons.

Of course without RNG it's just point and click right? Not "reductio ad absurdum" when YOU do it. No wonder you don't like logic.

[tenderloving]

YueFei, on 31 May 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

1.) no convergence. All weapons fire in parallel. Players can either alpha the whole she-bang and watch some of it miss, and scatter hits all over the enemy. Or they can fire weapons individually, rapidly adjusting aim between shots like an exhibition shooter smashing multiple targets in under a second. Now THAT would take alot more skill, and raise the skill ceiling. And, at least the victim has a chance to maneuver to spread the damage.

This would just FEEL awesome. The fights would be so chaotic and engaging.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Voidcrafter, on 31 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

Well yea, for the first part of your comment - that's what I was trying to say exactly -
"Ooh goodie, no matter what weapon I mount, it won't hit where I aim, so why don't I just mount like the highest alpha weapons I can, so no matter where they hit to make it feel it hurt big time!".

Why not mount the highest alpha weapons right now? Boating is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with via a separate mechanic.

Voidcrafter, on 31 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

No matter where I hit there'll be body parts flying all around the map.

Not really. Let's say you fire four weapons and you hit two locations. Their armor is effectively doubled(maybe more) compared to the system we have now.

Voidcrafter, on 31 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

And another thing, if the computer does all the aiming, how can't he(or it - the computer) make some simple algorythm, that I can write on hand, with gravity and distance multiplier/reducer values, that makes your shot precise, like the warfare technology 1k years away from the current time should be logically able to do?

Yeah, you're comparing BT science to real-world science, and that does not work at all. Walking tanks with less density than foam will never be a thing, lasers will never have damage that falls off the the same manner, armor will never be the BT magic armor, Moores Law does not allow for reverse progression, and targeting computers really suck.

It's part of the genre. Logic goes in the closet and we roll with it.

[Shakespeare]

Saying it again here because it's actually more relevant to this topic than the original source:

I don't really have a lot of respect for the people who feel that the hyper-accurate arsenal we have right now is good for the game (i.e., that any change to the potential accuracy of a player is omfg RNG wankery). Currently, the crosshair is magic - it's not effected by movement, it AUTOMATICALLY adjusts non-centered weapons to converge on the target nearly-instantly, and with HSR, it's basically NEVER wrong - oh, and it tells you when you hit things.

This is not skill. It's automation. The game will not die if crosshair accuracy and weapon behavior becomes a mechanic to be managed, instead of an assumed right. PPC +Gauss Jetpackers (occasionally dubbed Halomechs) take advantage of the magic of perfect point-and-shoot weapon groupings - the guns dynamically adjust to the range and location of the target to hit right where you're pointing. It's not quake 2 any more, people. Mechs drop like flies out there right now. This is NOT ok, or even intended. If getting the right shot, the perfect Torso hit with multiple weapons, involves a little patience, or work - if maneuvering and jumping while twisting and zooming while firing is COSTLY, maybe we'll get a more methodical game back.

For me, the matches where I have the most fun, win or lose, are the ones where the teams are competing for position, taking the initiative and committing when advantageous - often with a 'main' battle that can last several minutes, each mech according to its advantages. Is ANYONE having prolonged toe-to-toes with PPC/Gauss fireteams? It's instakills far faster than we've ever seen. It's not a healthy state for the game. It's not fun for me personally, but more importantly, it bypasses one of the things that makes mechwarrior different from an FPS - pace. Dropping into a match, particularly an 8-man, is a commitment. Matches can be lengthy, and tense, and you get one life, that's it. It shouldn't have nearly the same pace as an old-school shooter, or a modern combat FPS. And yet if you get enough Burst-weaponry mechs in a match, it can be over in 4 minutes. Targeted mechs can round 1 wrong corner, and lose half or all their mech, in a blink. It feels...crude. It's the only word I've got, I apologize if it doesn't convey the right idea.

I know this is an old, exhausted discussion, but I just had to say it, again, in the best way I know how. And the crosshair worshipping crowd can ignore Shooter gaming post 1999 all they want, but a more measured game means giving up the magical accuracy systems. It's not your skill alone scoring those shots. The game is giving it to you, and I don't think it's a good thing.

[Lycan]

Voidcrafter, on 31 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

Well yea, for the first part of your comment - that's what I was trying to say exactly -
"Ooh goodie, no matter what weapon I mount, it won't hit where I aim, so why don't I just mount like the highest alpha weapons I can, so no matter where they hit to make it feel it hurt big time!".

I think you and the "I gotta hit where I am" crew are missing another point. You seem to think that if you don't hit exactly where your cursor is, then you're "missing".

The thing is, you're aiming at the Battlemech. You always have in Battletech. It wasn't until the advent/introduction of the Clans (and optional combat rules) that introduced Targeting Comps that would all you to aim at specific locations. And even then, there were restrictions on those.

As for loading up on high damage weapons anyway? Well, you kinda wanted a few of them to punch holes in a battlemech's armor so if you did have any "lesser" damage weapons they had more of a chance of penetrating into the sensitive, soft gooey interior of the mech to damage components and IS.

Quote

True - less ammo, more heat, but if we're talking about 4+ PPCs, or 2/3(ER)PPCs + a Gauss, would it really matter if I can shoot two times in a row?
No matter where I hit there'll be body parts flying all around the map.

And again, no they wouldn't be because the likelyhood of those 4+ PPCs, or 2/3(ER)PPCs + a Gauss hitting the same location would be iffy.

Yes, any locations that WERE hit by them would be in for a world of hurt but then again, they ARE Particle Beams and Gauss Rifles. They're suppose to leave a mark.

The other limiting factor that PGI discounted was Heat. If you fired those four PPC or the 2/3 (ER)PPCs in the table top. You're done. Shutdown. And you're shutdown for way longer than you are in this game. Plus, when you do manage to come back on line, you're dealing with major movement and even more to-hit penalties.

It's why Alpha strikes in the TT were usually Hail Marys. Because you either killed your opponent with it or they killed you.

Quote

And another thing, if the computer does all the aiming, how can't he(or it - the computer) make some simple algorythm, that I can write on hand, with gravity and distance multiplier/reducer values, that makes your shot precise, like the warfare technology 1k years away from the current time should be logically able to do?

Because this is the Battletech universe and has nothing to do with real life?

You might as well ask yourself why the space battles in Star Trek/Wars all happen within several hundred meters of each other instead of hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

People like to see lasers and proton/photon torpedoes flying every which way. Ships getting hulled and spewing fire, etc.

Just like in Battletech people like to take giant armored walking robots into battle and have them last longer than 2-3 seconds.

Quote

Aside from that - I have no issues with implementing more challenge toward the aiming - but still I fear that this change would make the things even worse than they're currently...

Regardless of the "It's Beta" tag/excuse that gets thrown around, it's probably too late in the game to make a fundamental change like this.

[Thunder Lips Express]

cyberFluke, on 26 May 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Not 100%, but far too high IMO. Especially considering the extremely low number of times I've used some of these weapons, giving me no time to "get used to them". I've omitted Guided weapons (SSRMs, LRMs) for obvious reasons and SRMs because I never use them other than for trolling, so hardly a fair or accurate stat. Hopefully I can use HTML tables on here...? If not, I'll have to edit the post I guess.. here goes.


nope... hmmm... lemme try and rejig the table into something acceptable...
here we go...



Bear in mind I use my PPCs as pointers when giving team intel out on TS, otherwise they'd be a damn sight higher too.

it is very easy to have high accuracy with lasers, the damage done by them in comparison to other weapons in relation to times being fired should be more indicative of how easy it is to hit.
as i'm reading this back in my head i don't think i make sense....well at least i know what i mean

[Skinflowers]

World of Tanks (Love or loathe) has imprecise weapon targeting and fails miserably as a game Makes no money for it's developers. punishes the skilled and is a large pile of undifferentiated fail all round.

No it isn't but I hope you get the point I'm making.

[RG Notch]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

World of Tanks (Love or loathe) has imprecise weapon targeting and fails miserably as a game Makes no money for it's developers. punishes the skilled and is a large pile of undifferentiated fail all round.

No it isn't but I hope you get the point I'm making.

It's also P2W so lets go that route as well no?

[Skinflowers]

RG Notch, on 31 May 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

It's also P2W so lets go that route as well no?

You're comparing two completely seperate arguments. Applying a funding argument to an accuracy argument has literally zero relevance.

[Shakespeare]

I'm NOT actually sure what point he's making (sarcastically pointing out that WoT is quite successful? suggesting that WoT's combat model is unfun? Claiming that lack of precision is killing that game slowly?).
But yeah, if WoT is suffering long term, it's because it pumps the player base for every dime it can as the worst example of free-to-play BS in existence.
Whether it's fun or not, it's the wrong model for this game. There's a reason 'Gold Ammo' is infamous even to those who have never played.