203 replies to this topic

[Ralgas]

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

Your signature is especially funny when you wave the word "logic" around like a bludgeon.

And no, additional ellipses don't make you any more persuasive.

K, i'm listening to the pgi'er here, i made a 5 point arguement a while back and until you give me either a system that works or a counterpoint better than an attempt at a classy "you're wrong" i'm out. I just pointed out 2chassis that would become new meta or geta lot stronger after the only proposed change you put forward and instead you just attack me again.

[Thomas Hogarth]

As it stands right now, I have difficulty hitting the CT of a Jenner moving full tilt at range. The shot may hit the arm closest to me, or the torso closest to me, or occasionally the leg, but I generally will hit. I give it about a 70-80% chance. Since I've gone to the dark side of abusing the customization aspect of the game, I will be hitting with enough firepower to damage that Jenner to a huge degree, probably going into internal in one focused shot.

And I am either somewhat below average in skill, or merely average in skill. Remember this, I'll bring it up later.

While you could argue that my skill goes into hitting that Jenner, the real test of skill is in making shots hit that important CT(or side, in case of XL). I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that did not possess enough skill to reliably hit a 'Mech anywhere on it's hitbox. although there was that one Heavy Metal driver today... but that was an outlier, by far most pilots can hit a target.

The "skill" comes from being able to target a specific section of a 'Mech. And that would indeed be an impressive amount of skill... if most players weren't capable of doing the same thing. As I said before, I'm either below average or average, and hitting the CT of most targets is a laughable breeze.

Introducing inaccuracy - be it through cone of fire or some combination of inventive mechanics - does not remove skill. It changes what defines skill. In other words, it's the questions that are asked to define skill that are changed:

"Can you hit the CT of an enemy at least somewhat reliably?"
to
"Can you hit an enemy at least somewhat reliably?"

In a FPS game, that's not the biggest difference in the world. In a game with an HTAL armor layout, that's a huge difference, and the answer to why it's needed.

[Dude42]

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.

Or a joke.

Edit: Calm down a bit man, you're starting to froth at the mouth. You don't even know who's on your side any more.

Edited by Dude42, 28 May 2013 - 07:52 PM.

[Dude42]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

There's so much sarcasm on the internet that your post is the mirror image of many like it that were not intended to be "jokes".

I don't even remember the guy's name anymore, but there was this Church of Skill™ acolyte the other day that claimed and swore up and down that any RNG mechanics at all (even stuff like "not as accurate while on the run" or "not as accurate while jumping") would be a slippery slope to Everquest 1 autoattacks.

ROFL. Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic? I sure hope he was... There's just so much wrong with that sentiment.

[Dude42]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

If he was being sarcastic he maintained that sarcasm with what I assume was a straight face for the better half of the night, flaming me back and forth while I was grinding my JagerMech.

Terrible.

[Xie Belvoule]

Neverfar, on 27 May 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Dogmatically, these same guys would say that all these games are "dumbed down" because nothing and absolutely nothing should prevent their mouseclick on some pixels from resulting in an impact on those same pixels.

Not simulated gravity, nor recoil or movement. Nothing. Nothing at all. That's how gifted they believe they are. They think it's a mutant power to hit things with a sniper rifle in Unreal Tournament 1 apparently.

[cyberFluke]

Thomas Hogarth, on 28 May 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

As it stands right now, I have difficulty hitting the CT of a Jenner moving full tilt at range. The shot may hit the arm closest to me, or the torso closest to me, or occasionally the leg, but I generally will hit. I give it about a 70-80% chance. Since I've gone to the dark side of abusing the customization aspect of the game, I will be hitting with enough firepower to damage that Jenner to a huge degree, probably going into internal in one focused shot.

And I am either somewhat below average in skill, or merely average in skill. Remember this, I'll bring it up later.

While you could argue that my skill goes into hitting that Jenner, the real test of skill is in making shots hit that important CT(or side, in case of XL). I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that did not possess enough skill to reliably hit a 'Mech anywhere on it's hitbox. although there was that one Heavy Metal driver today... but that was an outlier, by far most pilots can hit a target.

The "skill" comes from being able to target a specific section of a 'Mech. And that would indeed be an impressive amount of skill... if most players weren't capable of doing the same thing. As I said before, I'm either below average or average, and hitting the CT of most targets is a laughable breeze.

Introducing inaccuracy - be it through cone of fire or some combination of inventive mechanics - does not remove skill. It changes what defines skill. In other words, it's the questions that are asked to define skill that are changed:

"Can you hit the CT of an enemy at least somewhat reliably?"
to
"Can you hit an enemy at least somewhat reliably?"

In a FPS game, that's not the biggest difference in the world. In a game with an HTAL armor layout, that's a huge difference, and the answer to why it's needed.

Much <3

I thank you greatly for a clearer explanation than I've managed so far

[cyberFluke]

Xie Belvoule, on 28 May 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

Brilliant. Right on the button.

[Ralgas]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

So you offer absolutely nothing to the discussion but a borrowed picture and implied whining about me, and *I'm* the troll?

when your argument to a counter point is "your logic is flawed and you're wrong" with no explanation, pretty much

[Brayden14]

Now I'm not going to pretend to know anything about any proposed forms of balancing or anything like that, that being said, I'm still going to put in my two cents worth.

Streaks need to go die in a fire. While I understand and accept the validity of an Atlas (or any other large slow 'mech) being able to load a few SSRM's onto its frame to keep lights at a distance, I wholeheartedly disagree with a Commando, or any other fast mover (for the sake of argument, 90+ KPH top speed) being able to load on even 2 sets of SSRM's. It largely removes any skill requirement for a light-on-light engagement or for anything heavier (ie., a Centurion or a Dragon) loaded out with the intention of hunting light 'mechs.

I don't know how many others have a grievance against SSRM's, but I pretty well only pilot lights and SSRM's are by far my biggest peave with MWO.

FYI, before someone tries to suggest that I like to use them and I just don't like having them used against me, I think I only ever loaded out with them once back in the early beta stages. I prefer to try winning engagements based on aim and general piloting skill.

[Caustic Canid]

I think I'm gong back to my original idea (from a previous thread) about simply removing alpha strike/group fire, and adding a universal .5 second cooldown between all weapons firing (with the exception of MGs and flamers as they are dps weapons)

I think this idea has the fewest amount of unforseen outcomes of any idea I've heard so far.

No single mech would be nerfed. People could still use every single build that exists today.

It would be easier to implement than most of the other ideas, and would require the least amount of tweaking to get right.

People who like pinpoint accuracy and skill would still be rewarded, however they would have to be consistent.

People who hate being two or three shotted would have more time to react and move around, or find cover.

Players may even diversify their builds when stacking weapons becomes less effective.

[Voidcrafter]

Thomas Hogarth, on 28 May 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

As it stands right now, I have difficulty hitting the CT of a Jenner moving full tilt at range. The shot may hit the arm closest to me, or the torso closest to me, or occasionally the leg, but I generally will hit. I give it about a 70-80% chance. Since I've gone to the dark side of abusing the customization aspect of the game, I will be hitting with enough firepower to damage that Jenner to a huge degree, probably going into internal in one focused shot.

And I am either somewhat below average in skill, or merely average in skill. Remember this, I'll bring it up later.

While you could argue that my skill goes into hitting that Jenner, the real test of skill is in making shots hit that important CT(or side, in case of XL). I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that did not possess enough skill to reliably hit a 'Mech anywhere on it's hitbox. although there was that one Heavy Metal driver today... but that was an outlier, by far most pilots can hit a target.

The "skill" comes from being able to target a specific section of a 'Mech. And that would indeed be an impressive amount of skill... if most players weren't capable of doing the same thing. As I said before, I'm either below average or average, and hitting the CT of most targets is a laughable breeze.

Introducing inaccuracy - be it through cone of fire or some combination of inventive mechanics - does not remove skill. It changes what defines skill. In other words, it's the questions that are asked to define skill that are changed:

"Can you hit the CT of an enemy at least somewhat reliably?"
to
"Can you hit an enemy at least somewhat reliably?"

In a FPS game, that's not the biggest difference in the world. In a game with an HTAL armor layout, that's a huge difference, and the answer to why it's needed.

I still kinda fail to see how this would prevent people going the huge-alpa sniper builds instead of doing quite the oposite?
Since you know you won't be able to hit most of the time no matter how good your aim is - the hell with it - let's just mount 4/5/6 (ER)PPCs, or 3/4 of them with a Gauss Rifle and make that random hit *somewhere* just counts the most.
We've never seen the way that one works out, haven't we?
Oh.. wait

Cause I've been playing Counter Strike alot - by a lot I mean on a descent tournament level - if you're trying to say that making the weapons act similar like they do in CS would make this game better I'm ready to start a very nasty argue about it.
The weapon in this game doesn't have the same fire rate like the most weapons in CS for example - you can't affort to miss 3 of 5 from the 200 shots you got, considering you're playing against 8 ppl( *soon* 12 ), not small teams like 3/4/5/6.
Not to mention that this difference itself(introducing the 12 ppl teams) would push people even more toward the using of hard hitting energy weapons like the PPCs seens they require no ammo... I don't really want to start imagine how worse the things would get if no matter what you do there would be uncertainty about where the shot will hit...

People never get tired of cheating.
That's one of the reasons the game is in the current poptart/PPC/AC40 boating hell.
The other one is that a lot of people are ready to do just about EVERYTHING just in the name of winning.
The third one is that cheating leads to higher kill rates and victory rates.

To define cheating - some weakness, flaw in the game mechanics, that's allowing something to be a WAY better than all the other choices you can make in a game, that's claimed balanced.

At least that's how's the things for me.
I don't cheat. I don't use ******** poptart/PPC/AC-boating builds. I don't exploit jumpjetting, none-or-almost-none existing hitboxes, lagshields, etc. etc. - I've never done that (if you cut the 2/3 times I was intrigued what's the big deal about those things).
Because in the first place of my top priority list about this game stays the following simple words:
"Just Have Fun!"
Guess "fun" have different meaning for different individuals
And I'm proud for every single kill/victory that I've managed to achieve the way I play.

But I don't think your idea offers any solution to the current "balance issues" - actually I think this would complicate the upcoming(after, for example, someone really decided to listen to you) "hotfixes" about how people should be finally restricted by a number of hardpoints per TYPE OF weapon, or the number of "big weapons" they can carry, or whatever they come up to fix this.
Well... we can already go in that direction and push the game a bit back in the timeline - before all the people went boating without introducing more randomness that would make the alpha-killing even more addictive and satisfieing

I actually thought about a lot of things - and I jumped to the conclusion, that the less things the DEVs have pending to fix, considering the game ballance, the more time they'll have to adress the really cool and (in my opinion) important stuff like...
I dunno - Community Warfare? Clans? More content/maps/mechs/weapons? More game variety?
Those things, by themselves, could easily shift the meaning of the current "game ballance" (for example - just like that poptarding ******* the Highlander - did on it's release) and make the game seems more "ballanced" or the other way around.

For me the resolve of the current game issues is both introducing some huge jumpjetting inacurracy, and restricting mechs from carring more than 3 *large weapons*.
It's sad that that sort of extremistic ways should be taken just to force people use variety and imagination...

Anyways - that's all my opinion

[Thomas Hogarth]

Caustic Canid, on 28 May 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

I think I'm gong back to my original idea (from a previous thread) about simply removing alpha strike/group fire, and adding a universal .5 second cooldown between all weapons firing (with the exception of MGs and flamers as they are dps weapons)

I love this idea. I floated it back in the closed beta days(with my final thoughts being time between shots calculated via (damage of weapon)x(0.05)=time in seconds between weapons in group fired). I think it's an artful solution that, when combined with other factors(aim jerks with footsteps, jerks becoming more intense the faster one moves, heat introducing some sort of inaccuracy, no convergence, etc)

Voidcrafter, on 29 May 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

I still kinda fail to see how this would prevent people going the huge-alpa sniper builds instead of doing quite the oposite?

Introducing some sort of inaccuracy isn't supposed to make alpha builds impossible. It's supposed to make them less effective against mixed loadout builds as compared to the current situation. Alpha builds would still be preferable to mixed loadout builds, just not to the same degree. Addressing this issue should be achieved with another mechanic, such as similar weapon/same activation heat penalties.

Voidcrafter, on 29 May 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

...if you're trying to say that making the weapons act similar like they do in CS would make this game better I'm ready to start a very nasty argue about it...

We're good: I'm not married to any idea to introduce inaccuracy. The goal is to make damage more likely to spread across a 'Mech, and make low-skilled pilots such as myself less likely to core a 'Mech with ease.

Voidcrafter, on 29 May 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

But I don't think your idea offers any solution to the current "balance issues"

I didn't float any singular idea other than introducing inaccuracy. I again claim that this will make it less likely for low-skilled pilots such as myself to gain easy kills, and create a environment were increasing skill is rewarded. It will also make combat match the descriptions given to us in the lore - even the lore presented on this site. An enemy blowing my arm off should be something I go "awe hell" over, not think "man, they're really bad shots."

[Dude42]

Thomas Hogarth, on 29 May 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

Introducing some sort of inaccuracy isn't supposed to make alpha builds impossible. It's supposed to make them less effective against mixed loadout builds as compared to the current situation. Alpha builds would still be preferable to mixed loadout builds, just not to the same degree. Addressing this issue should be achieved with another mechanic, such as similar weapon/same activation heat penalties.

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...

[Joseph Mallan]

Thomas Hogarth, on 29 May 2013 - 03:50 AM, said:

*SNIP*

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!

[Kmieciu]

jay35, on 26 May 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

It's quite annoying that the hit detection is currently broken on ballistics until the other half of ballistic HSR is brought online, so nearly half of on-target AC and PPC shots are failing to register. But that's also a good example for everyone of how obnoxious it would be if some sort of RNG was introduced to determine whether your shots hit what you aimed at. Please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to start a thread that is in effect a request to remove player skill from the game.

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.

Edited by Kmieciu, 29 May 2013 - 04:37 AM.

[Thorqemada]

Brayden14, on 28 May 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Now I'm not going to pretend to know anything about any proposed forms of balancing or anything like that, that being said, I'm still going to put in my two cents worth.

Streaks need to go die in a fire. While I understand and accept the validity of an Atlas (or any other large slow 'mech) being able to load a few SSRM's onto its frame to keep lights at a distance, I wholeheartedly disagree with a Commando, or any other fast mover (for the sake of argument, 90+ KPH top speed) being able to load on even 2 sets of SSRM's. It largely removes any skill requirement for a light-on-light engagement or for anything heavier (ie., a Centurion or a Dragon) loaded out with the intention of hunting light 'mechs.

I don't know how many others have a grievance against SSRM's, but I pretty well only pilot lights and SSRM's are by far my biggest peave with MWO.

FYI, before someone tries to suggest that I like to use them and I just don't like having them used against me, I think I only ever loaded out with them once back in the early beta stages. I prefer to try winning engagements based on aim and general piloting skill.

You should be happy for Streaks being still in a usable state window.
Its already hard enough to cram a reasonable weaponload into a Centurion only carrying a STD 250 engine - its only possible with SSRM bcs SRM4 (or any SRM) did **** since a previous patch and now even more **** after the recent patch.
So when the supplemental SSRM go down the sewer too i will switch to a Heavy or Assault that can field 3 PPC + Gauss and Alpha you down in no time instead of having fights up to 1 minute.

Edited by Thorqemada, 29 May 2013 - 04:22 AM.

[Ralgas]

cyberFluke, on 28 May 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Much <3

I thank you greatly for a clearer explanation than I've managed so far

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

[Joseph Mallan]

Lykaon, on 27 May 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

This illistrates my point.

The capacity for modern gamers to be pinpoint accurate may antiquate older game mechanics from previous renditions of Mechwarrior.

In the past being pin point accurate was an exception today it's the rule.With average hardware and some motor skill anyone can hit the broadside of a mech with slightly better hardware and skill hitting a specific location every time is cake.

Do we need the hit location mechanics from table top especially without the balancing mechanics from the same source materiel?

Ok I know this flies in the face of the Game.

I am a Marine rifle expert marksman, 3 times awarded.

at 500 Meters we fired on a man size silhouette. I aimed at the "head and neck" every time (I wanted to kill my enemy. But My aim and other variables would have my shot hit a hip or shoulder as often as I hit the head or neck.

Now I will defer to a Tanker if one will chime in, cause I haven't fired a cannon. But I would think firing a Cannon at a target moving 50 KpH, while moving at 60 KpH would make shooting the 3rd wheel from the front right side, pretty near impossible.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 29 May 2013 - 04:45 AM.

[Lycan]

Voidcrafter, on 29 May 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

I still kinda fail to see how this would prevent people going the huge-alpha sniper builds instead of doing quite the opposite?

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.