704 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

During ask the devs 43.

The question was asked if Homeless Bills idea was seriously considered, was anything done with this idea.

It received the second highest number of votes overall by the active forum users of MWO.

The question was not answered, not even addressed. nothing.... nada..... and heat penalties rolled over a less then enthusiastic community.

I think we have been wasting our time. Seriously what do we know. We're not devs only players....
if you played BT in the 80's you had an above average intelligence looking for an outlet.

Where do you think these player are today that crowd sourcing development is a bad idea?

The MWO community called all your issues, in closed beta, 1.5+ years ago. MWO is not EVE

Cant wait for jamming gremlins on problematic auto-cannons/gauss combos

Edited by Tombstoner, 29 July 2013 - 12:57 PM.

[Stomp]

Bump this ****! Second page my ***. Everybody needs to see this solution. Period. There's a King Crab discussion going on right now, linked this. Hope somebody thinks it's a neat idea.

[Pht]

Tombstoner, on 29 July 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

During ask the devs 43.

The question was asked if Homeless Bills idea was seriously considered, was anything done with this idea.

It received the second highest number of votes overall by the active forum users of MWO.

The question was not answered, not even addressed. nothing.... nada..... and heat penalties rolled over a less then enthusiastic community.

I think we have been wasting our time. Seriously what do we know. We're not devs only players....
if you played BT in the 80's you had an above average intelligence looking for an outlet.

Be polite, be persistent, make sure to get your facts right, and don't go away.

If you're really bugged, Keep playing and using server bandwith; but don't pay for anything. Don't play like a jerk to run people off the servers. DO make sure to tell the devs why you're doing what you're doing.

There's no need to scream your head off and have a tantrum or do what's wrong to get their attention. Just do what will get their attention and make sure they're informed about it.

It's called consumer feedback; and the F2P model has a built in way for us to give feedback. Server bandwidth takes money. Costs are almost impossible to ignore; and when those costs are tied to a known reason, they get attention.

Edited by Pht, 30 July 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[Stomp]

Pht, on 30 July 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Be polite, be persistent, make sure to get your facts right, and don't go away.

If you're really bugged, Keep playing and using server bandwith; but don't pay for anything. Don't play like a jerk to run people off the servers. DO make sure to tell the devs why you're doing what you're doing.

There's no need to scream your head off and have a tantrum or do what's wrong to get their attention. Just do what will get their attention and make sure they're informed about it.

It's called consumer feedback; and the F2P model has a built in way for us to give feedback. Server bandwidth takes money. Costs are almost impossible to ignore; and when those costs are tied to a known reason, they get attention.

Honestly, this. Speak with your wallet. Doesn't matter if they put a King Crab in the game, or a Hero Timber Wolf. I am NOT spending a dime.

[Pht]

Stomp, on 30 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Honestly, this. Speak with your wallet. Doesn't matter if they put a King Crab in the game, or a Hero Timber Wolf. I am NOT spending a dime.

The biggest thing besides being polite is to MAKE SURE they know why you're doing what you're doing. If that's not done, it's not consumer feedback; it's just petty revenge, which gets nobody anywhere.

[Stomp]

Pht, on 30 July 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

The biggest thing besides being polite is to MAKE SURE they know why you're doing what you're doing. If that's not done, it's not consumer feedback; it's just petty revenge, which gets nobody anywhere.

I'd rather no Mechwarrior than a Mechwarrior of limited enjoyment. No real strategy. No skill. Simply trigger happy one shots. Medium mechs? Instant death traps. If you can't strap 30+ alpha onto a mech these days, you're doing it wrong. And heat penalties for ballistic weapons? Pffft. I get what you're doing in that you're encouraging a smart, goal oriented action, but honestly they don't listen. Like he said; SECOND HIGHEST VOTES. NO response. It's not that they want to fix it; they want THEM to fix it. This and ECM. I thought I was frustrated before, but damn. It's like they want to implement everything in such a way as to have a ridiculous game. Have you even DROPPED in a Catapult with 2 LRM 15s? Silly. If you can't boat 4 launchers, you're not bringing any kind of usefulness to your team. The ONLY missile boat worth running is one that makes up for it's horrible usefulness and replies in kind with quantity over quality. Drop in a Commando sometime. Good luck surviving. Sorry for this rambling, i'm not addressing you in particular PHT, I'm just ranting. I commend you for keeping it together, I get too flustered thinking about this. It's why I've distanced myself from the game recently. I don't play for 4 hours anymore. An hour every other day. Any more and it becomes readily apparent this game will probably never change. The human need to be competitive in an easy way is astounding. You want competition? Hop in a Spider and get 4 kills and 600 damage. 3 Medium Lasers is enough for me at this point.

[Pht]

Stomp, on 30 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I'd rather no Mechwarrior than a Mechwarrior of limited enjoyment. ... honestly they don't listen.

You do realize that they can't interact on the forums in the same way we do, right?

I've somewhat been on the other side of this, being a beta tester elsewhere, and I can tell you, developers have to be OBSCENELY careful about what they post and when they post it; as every little thing they do is sliced, diced, cut to shreds, and by many blown into completely obscene proportions.

Quote

Like he said; SECOND HIGHEST VOTES. NO response.

Yep. It's annoying.

Quote

Sorry for this rambling, i'm not addressing you in particular PHT, I'm just ranting. I commend you for keeping it together, I get too flustered thinking about this.

... I had my flustered stage some years back. I figure maybe before I die someone might make a MW video game in which the mechs are robustly simulated. If nobody does, I have other things I enjoy doing to take up my time, even if they aren't as fun as the MW genre could be.

Ultimately, though, as with any multiplayer game, the game itself becomes almost secondary to the people and how they interact. I survived almost 10 years of MW4 because I enjoyed hanging out with certain people, regardless if the game wasn't the best.

Quote

It's why I've distanced myself from the game recently. I don't play for 4 hours anymore. An hour every other day. Any more and it becomes readily apparent this game will probably never change. The human need to be competitive in an easy way is astounding. You want competition? Hop in a Spider and get 4 kills and 600 damage. 3 Medium Lasers is enough for me at this point.

The "screw with their minds" gameplay was what I enjoyed in MW4 towards the end. That and abusing the daylights out of the mechlab system...


---

The point is ... if something really bothers us ... once we get control of ourselfs, we should figure out the right way to actually go about correcting it that isn't underhanded.

It's a little like someone I know who doesn't mind eating meat per se, but has real problems with some of the inhumane crap some meat-producers engage in. In response, this person ... instead of finding a local farmer that was humane, just decided to go vegan. silly, really, as it's more effective to apply pressure both ways at once - negative against what you don't want, positive for what you want.

[YueFei]

Probably the simplest thing that could be done at this point would be to slow PPC projectile speed, and shrink the mechs down in size. Make it so that a shooter has to lead his target so far ahead that his crosshairs focus on something in the background, so his convergence isn't pin-point on the target.

Note that a skilled shooter can still rapidly chainfire and compensate for each shot's deviation from the desired aim point, and land every shot into the same armor panel, if the target doesn't move/twist. And if a target is standing still, it's still gonna eat a pin-point alpha. But this way encourages movement.

Perhaps like this, Assault and Heavy mechs will be the ones most susceptible to pin-point alphas because of their large size and slow movement. They'll need a screen of Mediums and Lights who find the enemy while denying the enemy the ability to size up their own forces. Those lights and mediums will be like an aircraft carrier's screen of destroyers and frigates. They help get the assaults and heavies into position to deliver their firepower from the best angle on an unsuspecting enemy. The lights and mediums will be the ones who cause the enemy heavies and assaults to lose situational awareness in dealing with them. Role Warfare would mean something again.

[Lyoto Machida]

YueFei, on 31 July 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Probably the simplest thing that could be done at this point would be to slow PPC projectile speed, and shrink the mechs down in size. Make it so that a shooter has to lead his target so far ahead that his crosshairs focus on something in the background, so his convergence isn't pin-point on the target.

Note that a skilled shooter can still rapidly chainfire and compensate for each shot's deviation from the desired aim point, and land every shot into the same armor panel, if the target doesn't move/twist. And if a target is standing still, it's still gonna eat a pin-point alpha. But this way encourages movement.

Perhaps like this, Assault and Heavy mechs will be the ones most susceptible to pin-point alphas because of their large size and slow movement. They'll need a screen of Mediums and Lights who find the enemy while denying the enemy the ability to size up their own forces. Those lights and mediums will be like an aircraft carrier's screen of destroyers and frigates. They help get the assaults and heavies into position to deliver their firepower from the best angle on an unsuspecting enemy. The lights and mediums will be the ones who cause the enemy heavies and assaults to lose situational awareness in dealing with them. Role Warfare would mean something again.

Love the fleet analogy there. Also, if I recall correctly, shooting was like that back in Closed Beta. Convergence wasn't instantaneous...something changed along the way. Or I could be wrong...

[Big Giant Head]

Stats are not matching convergence.
All projectile weapons have bigger crit size, so should PPC have.

Imagine what would happen if Gauss is reduced to 4 or 3 critical slots.
Yeah thats PPC right now (plus it has longer range, higher heat output, speed and its health is normal - its not fragile like gauss)

Edited by Big Giant Head, 01 August 2013 - 03:20 AM.

[Troutmonkey]

Pht, on 10 July 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Actually, this is a very childish and poor way to argue against something. If this is the best he can muster, he must not care about this particular thing very much.

It's already been argued to death. This is a video game, and trying to implement TT values after PGI has completely changed the core rules isn't even going result in a very balanced game at all. Sure, be inspired by TT, but don't think ripping it off wholesale is going to translate into a fun game at all

[MrJolly]

Brilig, on 22 July 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Still think this is the best suggestion. I know they said messing with convergence created issues in ATDs 42. I am not sure this idea would cause those issues. Since your either shooting weapons within the TC's tolerance to achieve the same convergence we have now, or your over tolerance getting no convergence.

Is that correct? Would this fix work without causing issues they mentioned in ATD 42? It seemed like what they are worried about is having to calculate varying levels of convergence in real time, rather than an all or nothing scenario like HB's idea.

Having a step function from perfect convergence (at 100 points) to no convergence (at 101 points) could cause the client and server to have wildly different opinions on where a shot goes.

Example: Staggered alphas. Say you use two buttons for "alpha strike" - one for your medium laser and one for your AC/20. Stagger them slightly, so one is about 0,1 second after the other. Now the client may say you have 1 point residual after firing the laser, so you get 101 points when the AC goes off. Boom! No convergence. The server interprets it slightly different, and you only have 100 points according to its calculations. Convergence, and you are happily surprised when the mech dies from a missing shot.

Fortunately, 0rca's suggestion from below would improve that situation, as the difference between what the client believes has happened and what the server decides should be diminished. (With a sliding scale from 100 to 110 for convergence, your AC would be slightly off mark on your client and you would no longer be surprised by the hit.) You would probably not be able to tell the difference between this mechanic and general confusion with convergence if your crosshair slightly misses the mech.

0rca, on 27 July 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Best solution so far. I would change only one thing - make convergence degenerate with TCL, so high pinpoint alphas are still severely punished, but brawling is not completely dead past 100 TCL, this could add some depth to brawling itself. Make so each single percent of convergence is a single percent of a total angle required to actually converge. (Sorry if someone already proposed something like that, still reading comments)

Also, this could bring back a use for pinpoint - it could alter the slope of the transition. I.e. if transition was from 100 points (perfect convergence) to 110 points (no convergence), then pinpoint could put no convergence at 115 or so. Thus, pinpoint would allow you to get somewhat better precision in edgecases, making somewhat more aggressive alphas viable, but it would still not allow bigger alphas to be perfect precision.

(As a side note - this mechanic isn't that hard to implement for a competent game programmer. It still would take a bit of time, though.)

[YueFei]

Lyoto Machida, on 01 August 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Love the fleet analogy there. Also, if I recall correctly, shooting was like that back in Closed Beta. Convergence wasn't instantaneous...something changed along the way. Or I could be wrong...

Yeah the pin-point convergence is ridiculous. I'm a mediocre pilot, but even I get lucky once in a while, and when it happens, I realize there are players who can pull off those amazing shots on a consistent basis, and right away I know that at the highest skill levels, this game just boils down to twitch aiming skills. I still remember nailing a Spider pilot who was in mid-jump in a gap between buildings, he only exposed himself for 1 second, I took a wild snapshot with 4 PPCs. He was moving from my left to right, and my reticle touched his left arm for perfect convergence at 500 meters. When I fired, all 4 PPCs converged into his right torso and he died.

That kind of crap shouldn't be possible. With a slower PPC projectile, I would be forced to lead farther ahead, and the shots would all spread out. At most that snapshot would land like 1 PPC on his arm and 1 PPC on his leg. He would be damaged.... he would have paid a price for crossing that gap, but he would have survived. And who knows? Maybe in crossing that gap, he gains a better position to scout us out and taking some damage would be a worthwhile trade-off.

I think Koniving has some good ideas about lowering the heat cap to 30, and *hard* capping it there. I think that, along with slower PPC projectile speed, and an increase of PPC and ERPPC heat to their canonical values of 10 and 15, are the easiest and fastest things that PGI could implement immediately to curb PPC alpha spam. Forget this heat-stacking penalty nonsense....

I think Role Warfare could work beautifully along these lines:
1.) Assault mech beats Heavies and Mediums in a direct fight
2.) LRM + spotter beats a Assault Mechs and slow Heavies. Make it so LRMs are inefficient against Mediums and Lights who are on the move (it's already kind of like that. LRMs fired against Light mechs are a great way to waste ammo). That way LRM + spotter is weak against Mediums and Lights. Hell, Light mechs calling down artillery and airstrikes should strike real fear into slow, unmaneuverable mechs who can't move fast enough to clear the strike zone.
3.) Mediums should be able to beat Lights, as in, push them around. So your Assault mech has LRMs raining on his head? Have him try to break the LOS of the spotter while you send in your screen of Medium mechs to push that Light mech around, and keep that light mech away, and keep him too busy to spot for LRMs. Or send in your own dedicated combat light mechs. A spotting light mech has to make some sacrifices with TAG/ECM/BAP, so a light mech built for dedicated combat will have a slight edge over him in pure fighting.

Now the battlefield features all the different weight classes because they are needed, not because of tonnage limits. A team stacked with Assault and Heavy mech snipers will get whittled down and killed by spotter + LRMs. A team stacked with nothing but spotters + LRMs will be slaughtered by fast-moving lights and mediums who close in on them. And a team stacked with nothing but mediums will get slaughtered by Assault and Heavy mech snipers.

Paper, Scissors, Rock. What role will you play?

Edited by YueFei, 02 August 2013 - 12:26 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Bumping forever until PGI gets it.

[Tombstoner]

living with pin point damage can be managed if time to death feals right. whats the average time to death for all mechs in the game. im sure PGI has this data or it better dam well should have it. 5 minutes under full assault from 2+ mechs is too much. becaues the damage is on the ct. thus CT armor needs to be balanced with incomming dammage to effect a time to death that feals right. as it is everything dies way to fast.

Tank on tank should be one shot kills. battle ship on battle ship should take 30+ miutes to hours. why COF. its realy hard to hit somethign miles away when your moving and the target is moving. in the case of the bizmark vs. the HMS Hood. it had good weather the best optics, but most important of all is the Hood didnt use case and suffered an ammo hit.

also the type of ammo maters. some round only detonate if they hit something suficantly hard. its has been historicly noted that destroyers where hit by the battle ship yamato but the round just passed throught the ship with out detonating. int not untill a round hit the engine did the round blow up. true story look up task force taffy WWII battle in the south pasific.
Japan suffered from gross convergance errors and kept miss judging the range. but one good hit and that ship was done.

the game is in need of some size based armor adjustments. This in turn affects the need for heat penalties. when you ned to shoot more to get teh same effect your going to miss more and generate more heat with out doing damage. heat to damage delt per location is part of the reason pin point groups are so powerfull its not just the damage is the heat efficany of the shot.
heat is always generated but damage is not.

the game needs to up armor based on size and increace heat for grouped weapons based on total damage of the combo.
fire more then 25 point of damage and you get heat on a 1-1 or 1-2 basis for ewach heat over the 25 limit

for example say alpha cap is 30 and you shoot 4 ppc's you are 10 point higher then cap and you get a 10 point penalty 4- gross heat. Not suficant to change meta, make multiplyer x2 and the heat becomes 20. 3x and its 30 extra for 70 gross. rate of fire drops and players can calculate the penalty in there head.

cap 30 im 15 over with a 3x penalty so i get 45 penalty if i fire all my weapons. or 0 heat if i chane fire

[zorak ramone]

Bumping because this thread should be pinned or moved to GD.

[Homeless Bill]

I'll read and respond to some of this when I care more. For now, it's clear they're in the ****-****-get-it-done phase of game development (one I'm well-acquainted with), and this will be something to push more actively after launch. I'm working on a concise version that will be less overwhelming for the average reader. That said, I shamelessly bumped the other thread, so this might as well come with it.

To anyone pissed off about the ATD snub: Meh. I was only pissed off that the mods lumped it in with two totally unrelated heat questions; I'm glad they opted to not answer it at all instead of pretending to answer it. They have every right to pick and choose which questions they want out of the top 15.

Even if it was the most popular, there's no obligation for them to respond to a very specific proposal. Would I like one? Absolutely. Am i going to get one? Absolutely not. Don't get all entitled, kids; you'll only be disappointed =D

[Pht]

Troutmonkey, on 01 August 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

It's already been argued to death.

Flamed to death, sure. Argued? ... Argument requires understanding and engaging the other side's position. That has happened very little if at all.

Quote

This is a video game, and trying to implement TT values after PGI has completely changed the core rules isn't even going result in a very balanced game at all.

... erm ... they never used the combat system from the boardgame, not in any fashion. They started with the weapons and armor numbers, though.

Quote

Sure, be inspired by TT, but don't think ripping it off wholesale is going to translate into a fun game at all

"inspired" ... I'll bet you can't tell us in a clear and meaningful way what you mean by this word as you've just used it. I suppose it is nice to see something besides "flavor" or "spirit" being used as an ambiguous door-stopper phrase.

[Troutmonkey]

Pht, on 06 August 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

"inspired" ... I'll bet you can't tell us in a clear and meaningful way what you mean by this word as you've just used it. I suppose it is nice to see something besides "flavor" or "spirit" being used as an ambiguous door-stopper phrase.

Dawn of War 1 and 2 are both rather good games, based off of a Table Top strategy game. Did they require that each unit be exactly like it's table top equivalent for the game to be fun? No, they took inspiration from the games core rules, made it into something playable in real time, and something that was skill based. Each army featured weapons and units originating from the TT, and sometimes even added to them. Did this make the game rubbish? No, I enjoyed both of these games, as well as the TT game (until GW outpriced everyone on the TT game).

[Pht]

Troutmonkey, on 06 August 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Dawn of War 1 and 2 are both rather good games, based off of a Table Top strategy game. Did they require that each unit be exactly like it's table top equivalent for the game to be fun? No, they took inspiration from the games core rules, ....

How can this be a meaningful statement, if you can't clearly explain what you mean by "inspiration" ... and how can anyone know what you mean?

This is the point I'm trying to make.

Inspiration, flavor, spirit... these are functioning only as conversation stopper words when they're not defined.