203 replies to this topic

[jay35]

PEEFsmash, on 26 May 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

The split on subjects such as this one is cleaved fairly strictly between players at the top who want the game to be as skill-based as possible, and mid or low level players who want some randomness to let them win some games/battles against the best players.

It should perhaps encourage you that I'm nowhere near as skilled as you and other competitive players but I fully support keeping the game skill-based and not random.

Quote

Also involved are the tabletop grognards who are also bad at this game, but want the game to be more randomized for the sake of making it more like tabletop, which is even more depressing than mid/low level players wanting randomness to give them free wins.

Yep, that's one of the top frustrations this thread is aimed at addressing, especially when they have the perfect alternative available in MW:Tactics.

Quote

If you want randomness to give you wins, go play one of the other battletech-related games that lets a dice or a % determine whether you hit something or not. This game could be a great, difficult-to-master, high-skill-gap, strategic team FPS with a thriving competitive scene and a huge separation between the very best players and the average players. I hate when people want to insert RNG win gifts or insert other mechanics to make low/mid level players about as good as everyone else...not only does it make me mad, it makes me sad, because you are turning a game that can be into a game that could have been... and for what? So you can get some random wins vs players who by your own admission are better than you. What a sad and depressing state of affairs.

One small beacon of hope is that the developers seem to lay more on the side of keeping it competitive and skill-based. I just worry that the volume of whining from the two groups you identified might be seen by them as an overwhelming public opinion when it's not, it's just that most of us never speak up to the contrary except within their threads that start out begging for randomized functions or effects to be added to MWO.

Edited by jay35, 26 May 2013 - 02:14 PM.

[Pht]

jay35, on 26 May 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

... but I fully support keeping the game skill-based and not random.

As do I. I believe human skill (physical and mental) should make the difference in 99% of the cases between who wins and who does not.

And yet we disagree. Do you even know what we disagree over?

Quote

Yep, that's one of the top frustrations this thread is aimed at addressing, especially when they have the perfect alternative available in MW:Tactics.

Those who disagree with the "we want perfect aiming under the reticule for all weapons of like velocity fired at the same time" crowd WANT a first-person real-time video game too... and this fact is obvious.

Do you even care that this is so?

Quote

One small beacon of hope is that the developers seem to lay more on the side of keeping it competitive and skill-based. I just worry that the volume of whining from the two groups you identified might be seen by them as an overwhelming public opinion when it's not, it's just that most of us never speak up to the contrary except within their threads that start out begging for randomized functions or effects to be added to MWO.

Let's clarify your position.

Do you believe that NOT having all weapons of similar velocity fired at the same hit exactly the same spot under the reticule automatically results in a video game that cannot have equivalent or even more human player skill that matters?

[Dude42]

Pht, on 26 May 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

As do I. I believe human skill (physical and mental) should make the difference in 99% of the cases between who wins and who does not.

And yet we disagree. Do you even know what we disagree over?



Those who disagree with the "we want perfect aiming under the reticule for all weapons of like velocity fired at the same time" crowd WANT a first-person real-time video game too... and this fact is obvious.

Do you even care that this is so?



Let's clarify your position.

Do you believe that NOT having all weapons of similar velocity fired at the same hit exactly the same spot under the reticule automatically results in a video game that cannot have equivalent or even more human player skill that matters?

I already pointed out on the first page of this travesty that he was plainly contradicting himself. He claimed to want more skill, then argued against the inclusion of features that would make the game require more skill. The fact that anyone even bothered to discuss it with him further is sad. I may have to revise my score. No way I though this dribble would continue for 3 pages.

revised score : 4/10

[sarkun]

Skill in shooting in MWO? Lol. If you can successfully double click the game icon on your desktop, you have all the skill required to hit things in this game.

Consider for a moment Battlefield 3. Your accuracy is affected by your stance (standing, kneeling, prone) whether you are stationary or moving, aiming down sight or not, your's weapon attachments, you have bullet drop, recoil to compensate for, and all weapons have different bullet speeds and spread patterns to master. You are also affected by enemy suppression.

THAT is what makes shooting skill based - ability to overcome all the inherent inaccuracy, and choosing the best way to engage every target. THIS IS SKILL, no this mwo ******** of just point and click regardless af anything. I'm all for cone of fire, recoil, heat penalties, anything to end this easy mode ****.

[Pht]

I really don't see the point of keeping score about the whole thing.

I don't even really mind that much that he (and others) disagree with myself and others on this topic.

What bothers me is that virtually every post on this topic I've seen shows a rude (and sometimes, self-serving) ignorance of what those who disagree with them really want, and what they really are putting forth.

If, at the least, he and I can understand what each other are putting forth such that we don't strawman each other, some positive progress will have been made.

[Dude42]

Pht, on 26 May 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

I really don't see the point of keeping score about the whole thing.

I don't even really mind that much that he (and others) disagree with myself and others on this topic.

What bothers me is that virtually every post on this topic I've seen shows a rude (and sometimes, self-serving) ignorance of what those who disagree with them really want, and what they really are putting forth.

If, at the least, he and I can understand what each other are putting forth such that we don't strawman each other, some positive progress will have been made.

I don't think you quite understand the scoring system.

That being said, if one person is arguing a logical fallacy, there is no need to contradict him, for he has already done so.

His entire post is similar to the statement "I like trees, so let's go burn down the rainforest." Any attempt to engage that with logic is futile. Best thing to do is just keep right on moving.

[Caustic Canid]

I don't understand why people who are against Cone of fire say its "Unrealistic".

Real life -is- random, as far as humans are concerned.

You could fire 100 of the same brand of bullets from the exact same gun and get 100 different results.

Some of them would be effected by wind, some would have slight variances, some might not even fire.

If you want true realism, then weapons should randomly malfunction, because of some small stupid defect from the factory. Mechs should have a small chance to lock up (according to cannon, modifying any mech outside of stock would cause problems), ammo based weapons should have duds, jams and misfires.

Heck, why don't they implement the steel battalion system of deleting your profile whenever you die.

Somehow I don't think adding reticule bloom would utter break this game, and make it unplayable.

[Pht]

Dude42, on 26 May 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

That being said, if one person is arguing a logical fallacy, there is no need to contradict him, for he has already done so.

What I am doing is pointing things out to him that he is apparently ignorant of. If he actually decides to try to (and than actually does) understand these things (even if he doesn't agree with them) it will at least be one less person posting "you want MW tactics."

At the least he could realize just the tiny bit that even MW tactics isn't TT in 3d. The only electronic equivalent of the TT is megamek.

I'm not under the delusion that I can make anyone believe something. I do, however, try and make sure that people have no good excuses for their wrong beliefs.

[wolf74]

Go back to page two re-read my post. No random COF but you get that same effect by removing the auto-convergence and putting in manual convergence.

AGIAN goto page two and re-read my post.

[Dude42]

Pht, on 26 May 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

What I am doing is pointing things out to him that he is apparently ignorant of. If he actually decides to try to (and than actually does) understand these things (even if he doesn't agree with them) it will at least be one less person posting "you want MW tactics."

At the least he could realize just the tiny bit that even MW tactics isn't TT in 3d. The only electronic equivalent of the TT is megamek.

I'm not under the delusion that I can make anyone believe something. I do, however, try and make sure that people have no good excuses for their wrong beliefs.

Feel free. I was just trying to save you some time.

[Asmudius Heng]

PEEFsmash, on 26 May 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Fluke's latest diatribe again fails to even support the position that he is trying to support, and even encourages more poptarting and more assaultwarrior online. "The faster you move, the less accurate you should be"...really? Let's further nerf lights and make slow assaults even better. "The hotter you are the less accurate you should be"...really? What does my heat have to do with the flight path of the Gauss round shooting out of my arm pointed straight ahead? Mechs aren't humans who get "tired and trembly" when they get too hot, haha.

Really? That is what you took from it?

You do realise that he meant the percentage of your speed not the total speed would effect your CoF.

As for heat, heat effects a huge amount of the internal workings of a mech, and also the pilot that would easily account for this.

I am not for or against CoF but I think you are really trying way to hard and tripping yourself up in your arguments.

[OneEyed Jack]

Well, this thread is stupid, but I have to wonder of anyone pointed out to these idiots posting their weapon stats that simply touching a target with a single tick of damage from a hit scan weapon counts as a hit which, since they are hit scan after all, isn't terribly impressive.

[Pht]

Asmudius Heng, on 26 May 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

As for heat, heat effects a huge amount of the internal workings of a mech, and also the pilot that would easily account for this..

In particular heat really messes very badly with a 'mechs myomers, as they are actually electric motors that are already fairly resistive.

Basically, you shoot an electric current down a myomer strand and it contracts. When you up the heat level said myomer strands become more resistive to electricity, however, the heat isn't applied equally, so the myomer bundles not only slow down, they actually become jerky, because the myomer controllers can't compensate for what can't be predicted or measured.

High waste heat levels basically make a mech move like it's suffering from epileptic fits.

Edited by Pht, 26 May 2013 - 03:45 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Hoaggie, on 26 May 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

I... You've brought up something that really cuts man. I cant read. That's really a low blow man. Low blow.

I have no idea whether you can read or not, but you definitely didn't bother to read (or comprehend) which part of Jay's post resulted in a negative reaction. Same lack of reading and/or comprehension applies to my post you're replying to - see below.

Quote

That's cool, edit out the part where I was talking about aimed weapons, and made no mention of lockon weapons.

Last time I checked, SRMs didn't have a lock-on capability. Oh, and LBX autocannons hit random locations too.

[jay35]

Caustic Canid, on 26 May 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Real life -is- random, as far as humans are concerned.

Ah yes, "real life". A favorite strawman used by those who want to force obtuse, turn-based TT strictures onto MWO. As if the existing mechanics aren't capable enough, they want to add in all sorts of punitive measures to make the game less about raw skill and more about who best managed to balance a raft of competing warnings and failures like some sort of submarine hull leak simulator. Yes, in a real-time, first-person gameplay environment where consistency and efficiency is important to ensure skill determines the outcome not random events or unnecessary restrictions, they advocate putting in place additional hoops to jump through in order to play (or continue playing) the actual game. Whether it's demanding a return of R&R or adding punitive measures for heat buildup that is within the cooling efficiency of the mech build (think about that for a second, punishing the player when they haven't even maxed out the cooling capacity of the mech), it's the same root problem: They want a hardcore nerd simulator, not an action game. And so we're back to the topic post PSA: This might not be the game for them. But the good news is there are other games designed just for that, like MW: Tactics.

[Pht]

jay35, on 26 May 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Ah yes, "real life". A favorite strawman used by those who want to force obtuse, turn-based TT strictures onto MWO.

I'd say at this point that I'm probably one of the most "purist" "TT defines how the 'Mechs perform in combat" guys on this whole forum...

... and you'll not only see that I don't appeal to reality, I argue that it's wrong to do so.

Quote

As if the existing mechanics aren't capable enough, they want to add in all sorts of punitive measures to make the game less about raw skill and more about who best managed to balance a raft of competing warnings and failures like some sort of submarine hull leak simulator.

No, I don't want to add "punitive measures" to make the game "less about raw skill" (whatever you mean by "raw skill," a totally ambiguous phrase). WHO has been posting anything even like what you're flinging about here?

Myself, I'm actually very much against the COF implementation because I think that not only will it not do the 'Mech's combat performance justice, it would remove mousing skills and knowledge of the mech as being the primary parts of "gunnery skill" in a battlemech.

Quote

Yes, in a real-time, first-person gameplay environment where consistency and efficiency is important to ensure skill determines the outcome not random events or unnecessary restrictions, they advocate putting in place additional hoops to jump through in order to play (or continue playing) the actual game.

I've not advocated that inconsistent results should be in the game. I haven't seen anyone advocate this, and I've been on this topic fairly hotly since I first joined these forums when they first went online and while I was in the closed beta. Hell, I have a post on this topic of how to make MWO mechs actually behave like BTU mechs do... and it's been on the forums since november of 2011.

[Dude42]

Pht, on 26 May 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

{Throws in a fresh pile of troll food}

/facepalm

5/10

[jay35]

Pht, on 26 May 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

I'd say at this point that I'm probably one of the most "purist" "TT defines how the 'Mechs perform in combat" guys on this whole forum...

... and you'll not only see that I don't appeal to reality, I argue that it's wrong to do so.


No, I don't want to add "punitive measures" to make the game "less about raw skill" (whatever you mean by "raw skill," a totally ambiguous phrase). [...]

Myself, I'm actually very much against the COF implementation

[...]

I've not advocated that inconsistent results should be in the game.

For someone I'm apparently not addressing, you seem to be doing an awful lot of self defense.

[YueFei]

This game is derived from the TT, where weapon damage and armor values were balanced with weapons striking different armor panels.

If we are going to continue to use values derived from the TT, we have to make it possible for mechs to take hits on different panels. That does not mean we must make mechs shoot inaccurately. Instead, we can make it so the mech being shot at has a chance to twist and turn, crouch and jump, in order to spread the damage around. To do that, you just stretch out an alpha strike time-wise, make it infeasible to fire a huge stack of weapons simultaneously. Make it so that they fire in rapid succession, one after another, so a skilled shooter can still land all of his shots into the same spot, and if the victim mech driver is lazy or sucks, he will end up taking all those hits into the same spot. But this way, the victim mech has a chance to maneuver to present different armor facings and take damage all around. This ups the skill level required for both the shooter and the victim, and more closely resembles the TT as mechs take hits all around.

[Pht]

jay35, on 26 May 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

For someone I'm apparently not addressing, you seem to be doing an awful lot of self defense.

I believe that in order to make this game fully an MW video game, actually fitting the MW genre, that the calculation of lead point should be taken away from the player and given "to the mech" - which requires the use of some sort of randomization to simulate the 'mech's ability to handle it's weapons AND I believe that the weapons fire should be deconverged from under the reticule too (in a way that simulates the 'mechs ability to handle it's weapons in combat).

Your posts have been directly addressed against anyone who believes this, so you HAVE been addressing me. I have also been pointing out that others who agree with me at least on the topic that the weapons should be deconverged (by some means) who you have also been addressing don't put forth or want what you're saying they do.

You can't have your cake (strawman myself and others) and eat it to (say that you're not straw-manning me/us).

You have, in fact, complained about "TT grognards" - I am probably in the top ten of those actively advocating the use of the TT combat system in real-time format for mwo.

YueFei, on 26 May 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

This ups the skill level required for both the shooter and the victim, and more closely resembles the TT as mechs take hits all around.

It also makes the game more closely resemble the 'mech combat in the novels and the rest of the BT lore too, not just the TT.

Edited by Pht, 26 May 2013 - 05:21 PM.