64 replies to this topic

[Taemien]

I think too many players expect this game to be more than it is. They talk about convergence and 5 reticles and so on and so on. Yet no other MechWarrior game had these things. MechWarrior has and always will be, slap some weapons on a mech and go kill things. Its up for the players to make more of it then that, not the developers. Once we get private matches we'll see what the players actually do and that will ultimately make or break the game. We'll see if the players have the edge to be competitive in the form of league games and scrimmages and the heart to help their other players by inviting them into units and clans and training them.

As far as bugs and such. Many blame PGI for it. But they really should blame CryTek. Hit detection and netcode is a CryEngine problem. If you think it is bad in MWO. Try MWLL on anything more than 8v8. Past 16 players the only weapons that worked were lasers. Not missiles, not PPCs, not Gauss, not ACs, just lasers. Oh and there were 200-300kph flying Aerospace Fighters to deal with.

One could blame PGI for attempting to use CryEngine as an engine, and in a way I do. They're making things harder for themselves in the long run. Things like HSR are needed and take time to implement. Now they have to tune it for 12v12. The smart thing they have done is not allowing ongoing games. CryEngine isn't capable of 20+ minute long matches of mech mayhem with alot of players. But thats the engine they decided to use. In a way it makes impossible things easy, and easy things ridiculously hard, to quote a MWLL dev. So there is some good things too it.

In short, don't try to opt for things that this game just isn't. Enjoy what it is, and enjoy what it will be. And when given the tools, help your fellow players. Don't simply say, "screw everyone else" and just click launch to grind out cbills.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

The only real change so far is the addition of time. Weapons deal damage, generate heat and consume ammo. Mechs are armored and shots are made - but here in MWO we have pinpoint perfect accuracy with all fo the weapons at the same time. The damage, heat and ammo is focused around each weapon being shot in essential chain-fire all the time - the grouping and alphastrike abilities don't mesh well, even though I think both are great for the FPS atmosphere here. We just need to tweak the accuracy which isn't easy to give us the spread damage so the numbers and gameplay is elongated and more fun for everyone.


The only other glaring deviation is that in Battletech I think pretty much all weapons have identical recharge times - once every turn. The aspect of time here has added the recharge which each weapon is slightly different, that should be better reflected in the weapon damage IMO. But that might be a bit much to ask at this point.

I know what you mean. I play Battletech table top with friends (just started though, so we play mostly beginner rules), so I know what you mean. Still though, because weapons are turn based, every weapon has the same cool-down (and is chain fired) like you said. That inherinetly (SP?) makes it different enough to deviate certain weapons from TT for MWO.

Good example. Some people wanted MGs to have 2 damage like in TT. I said, that works in TT because of the turn based nature, but in a real time game, the MGs would be too overpowering at 2 dmg because they fire ALL the time and have no heat.

As for the accuracy of weapons in TT, I chaulk that up too the game (TT) trying to simulate a pilot's ability (skill) to dodge shots more so than lack of accuracy of weapons.

I know that weapons do need balance, and a FPS Battletech needs presents some unique challenges, but I am just saying that you can't say TT is the "ABSOLUTE GO TO" for balancing. MWO is unique animal, and it needs to be balanced as such.

[Unbound Inferno]

MeiSooHaityu, on 21 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I know what you mean. I play Battletech table top with friends (just started though, so we play mostly beginner rules), so I know what you mean. Still though, because weapons are turn based, every weapon has the same cool-down (and is chain fired) like you said. That inherinetly (SP?) makes it different enough to deviate certain weapons from TT for MWO.

Good example. Some people wanted MGs to have 2 damage like in TT. I said, that works in TT because of the turn based nature, but in a real time game, the MGs would be too overpowering at 2 dmg because they fire ALL the time and have no heat.

As for the accuracy of weapons in TT, I chaulk that up too the game (TT) trying to simulate a pilot's ability (skill) to dodge shots more so than lack of accuracy of weapons.

I know that weapons do need balance, and a FPS Battletech needs presents some unique challenges, but I am just saying that you can't say TT is the "ABSOLUTE GO TO" for balancing. MWO is unique animal, and it needs to be balanced as such.

Yes, but you can't deny that accuracy variable in TT along with their set of damage that is used as the base in MWO. Shots run more wild there than in the typical FPS where they usually end up more directed. Because of that, and the use of groupfire and alphashots we end up with the current pinpoint issues. That accuracy needs to be addressed or that damage needs modifying, there is no other way around it or the current issues with boating, weapon favoritism and other problems of crying overpowereed or underpowered weapons won't ever end.

[Mercules]

MeiSooHaityu, on 21 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Good example. Some people wanted MGs to have 2 damage like in TT. I said, that works in TT because of the turn based nature, but in a real time game, the MGs would be too overpowering at 2 dmg because they fire ALL the time and have no heat.

Not a good example...

1. MGs don't even do 2 damage in 10 seconds the way they are.
2. All other guns do X damage just like in TT but with higher rate of fire than TT.
3. MG ammo was never increased unlike all other weapons with ammo.

It's like they arbitrarily decided that MGs were the one weapon that shouldn't be like TT while all the others were.


Again I'll point out what should have been done to convert from TT to real time. If you want a weapon to have a RoF of X, divide that RoF into the 10 second TT round and then use that to divide the damage/heat. PPC firing every 5 seconds? 5 Damage and 4.5 heat every shot. Now all that damage is balanced with TT values and the weapons retain their lore and "feel".

[3rdworld]

As most of battletech's balancing mechanics are stupid.

I guess Mechwarrior?

[Gaan Cathal]

Taemien, on 21 June 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

I think too many players expect this game to be more than it is. They talk about convergence and 5 reticles and so on and so on. Yet no other MechWarrior game had these things.

Convergence isn't something that needs to be designed. It's in the game, just turned off. And, frankly, I expect more from a modern MW than I did from MW2. I expect more from Battlefront 3 than I did from Dark Forces. More from Star Citizen than Wing Commander IV. More from Starcraft 2 than Command and Conquer. Game design and technology has evolved. Shrugging your shoulders and going "It's **** design, but it's the same **** design as eighteen years ago so that's fine." is just being plain stupid.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 21 June 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[verybad]

Acid Phase, on 21 June 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

At this point it needs to extend far beyond 3 minutes of match time. As battletech lore would have it, battles lasted long period of time. If matches ended near 15 minutes and there would be enough kills on both ends, well it was a good game.

Actual Battletech TT games usually last 10 or less rounds in my experience. (generally under 2 minutes in real time) The TT rules are unbalanced in their own genre, crying out for them to be implemented more closely in a real time game is like the people saying the penny is a worthwhile coin...

[Adridos]

Actually, there is a difference between Battletech and TT itself.

[Acid Phase]

verybad, on 21 June 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Actual Battletech TT games usually last 10 or less rounds in my experience. (generally under 2 minutes in real time) The TT rules are unbalanced in their own genre, crying out for them to be implemented more closely in a real time game is like the people saying the penny is a worthwhile coin...

I don't mean according to TT. I'm basing it off the BT novels.

[Fut]

Unbound Inferno, on 20 June 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

But there lies the problem, and it gets compounded with instant convergence on the target range or wherever the cursor lands at all distances. We have the full force of the mech in perfect accuracy at almost all times – the entire balance numbers that were intended for randomization is off the charts.

The problem isn't with convergence, or accuracy at all.
It's the fact that Mech's only have 3 hitboxes for the Torso. It's ridiculously easy for people to aim and hit 1/3 of a Mech every time they shoot.
If all Mech's had more hit boxes (break up each of the current hitboxes, maybe into 4 or 5 sections each), it'd be much much harder for people to hit the exact same spot with consecutive shots.

Edited by Fut, 21 June 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Mercules]

verybad, on 21 June 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Actual Battletech TT games usually last 10 or less rounds in my experience. (generally under 2 minutes in real time) The TT rules are unbalanced in their own genre, crying out for them to be implemented more closely in a real time game is like the people saying the penny is a worthwhile coin...

How many maps did you use? Did you use Double Blind rules? Did you use Battle Value? Those all up the length of games. Most of mine were between 10-20.

[ExtremeA79]

MeiSooHaityu, on 21 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I know what you mean. I play Battletech table top with friends (just started though, so we play mostly beginner rules), so I know what you mean. Still though, because weapons are turn based, every weapon has the same cool-down (and is chain fired) like you said. That inherinetly (SP?) makes it different enough to deviate certain weapons from TT for MWO.

Good example. Some people wanted MGs to have 2 damage like in TT. I said, that works in TT because of the turn based nature, but in a real time game, the MGs would be too overpowering at 2 dmg because they fire ALL the time and have no heat.

As for the accuracy of weapons in TT, I chaulk that up too the game (TT) trying to simulate a pilot's ability (skill) to dodge shots more so than lack of accuracy of weapons.

I know that weapons do need balance, and a FPS Battletech needs presents some unique challenges, but I am just saying that you can't say TT is the "ABSOLUTE GO TO" for balancing. MWO is unique animal, and it needs to be balanced as such.

The 2 damage in TT can be directly translated to 2 DPS in this game. Do you fire a single 20 millimeter round at a mech with a weapon that has high RoF? No.

verybad, on 21 June 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Actual Battletech TT games usually last 10 or less rounds in my experience. (generally under 2 minutes in real time) The TT rules are unbalanced in their own genre, crying out for them to be implemented more closely in a real time game is like the people saying the penny is a worthwhile coin...

They aren't unbalanced. Have you ever played Battletech?
Besides, not EVERYTHING has to come from the board game. Novels are canon as well, and have a equal place in this game as TT.

[Stormwolf]

I love how people automatically assume that the TT and dice rolling are meant when someone says "Battletech".

Anyway, the TT is supposed to be a abstraction of the "real" combat that is happening, you can use things like armor levels and weapon stats without any problems if you adapt it properly.

I love the description in of the novels where it is said that the laser on a mech can go on forever, but it takes targetting systems to make them work properly against enemy targets at range (can't remember the novel, if anyone knows please tell me).

Anyway, the idea is that you can pinpoint your enemies at close range and can get some good shots in. At a distance your targetting systems won't properly allow you to pinpoint parts of enemy mechs with multiple weapons so there's a good chance that you'll hit multiple sections of the mech or miss completely.


Anyway, we could use some more of both Mechwarrior and Battletech to improve this game. And I'm not just talking about weapon stats here. A "thinking person's shooter"? Give me a break.

[The Strange]

Unbound Inferno, on 21 June 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

... there is no other way around it or the current issues with boating, weapon favoritism and other problems of crying overpowereed or underpowered weapons won't ever end.

That will never end anyway. There will always be someone complaining that a weapon is too powerful just because they got killed by it, and the same person will complain that a weapon isn't good enough because they can't kill with it. There will always be a "best" weapon unless all weapons are made exactly the same; and then what would be the point of having different weapons in the first place?

If the developers take these forums into account and actually "balance" the weapons the way the community seems to think they should, then all weapons will have to end up with the same range, damage, heat, and weight. If they don't do it that way, there will always be a weapon that is better than others, and everyone will use it.

You can never have weapon "balance". It just doesn't work. At all. You want balanced weapons and Mechs? Remove all weapons but the medium lasers, give every Mech the same amount of energy hardpoints, the same exact armor values, and the same hit boxes. Just make the Mechs look different and let the players change the color of their lasers. There, perfect balance. You won't get it any other way.

[Lostdragon]

The Strange, on 21 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

That will never end anyway. There will always be someone complaining that a weapon is too powerful just because they got killed by it, and the same person will complain that a weapon isn't good enough because they can't kill with it. There will always be a "best" weapon unless all weapons are made exactly the same; and then what would be the point of having different weapons in the first place?

If the developers take these forums into account and actually "balance" the weapons the way the community seems to think they should, then all weapons will have to end up with the same range, damage, heat, and weight. If they don't do it that way, there will always be a weapon that is better than others, and everyone will use it.

You can never have weapon "balance". It just doesn't work. At all. You want balanced weapons and Mechs? Remove all weapons but the medium lasers, give every Mech the same amount of energy hardpoints, the same exact armor values, and the same hit boxes. Just make the Mechs look different and let the players change the color of their lasers. There, perfect balance. You won't get it any other way.

I don't think you understand what most of us mean when we say balance.

[Lostdragon]

Tombstoner, on 21 June 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

u
I completely agree. without the DOW games i would never touch 40K

I was sad when THQ went under and nobody stepped up on DoW 3. The new licensing model will hopefully be better though, we will see. Already some new 40k games announced that I am looking forward to.

[Unbound Inferno]

The Strange, on 21 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

That will never end anyway. There will always be someone complaining that a weapon is too powerful just because they got killed by it, and the same person will complain that a weapon isn't good enough because they can't kill with it. There will always be a "best" weapon unless all weapons are made exactly the same; and then what would be the point of having different weapons in the first place?

If the developers take these forums into account and actually "balance" the weapons the way the community seems to think they should, then all weapons will have to end up with the same range, damage, heat, and weight. If they don't do it that way, there will always be a weapon that is better than others, and everyone will use it.

You can never have weapon "balance". It just doesn't work. At all. You want balanced weapons and Mechs? Remove all weapons but the medium lasers, give every Mech the same amount of energy hardpoints, the same exact armor values, and the same hit boxes. Just make the Mechs look different and let the players change the color of their lasers. There, perfect balance. You won't get it any other way.

People will always complain about something, but I think you miss the point of the balance we want.

We want it to where you are not restricted to hauling PPC, boating MLs out your butt and stockpiling on LRMs so much that you can't move. There should be a degree of leniency in how effective a mech can be so there is a better chance that whatever you want to build can run more effectively.

Accuracy is the root of this problem right now. If we can find a way to curb that with an admittedly harder to implement forced inaccuracy and penalties then it may be possible to be more effective with less leading to longer fights and more varied mech loadouts. Or at least that's my hope with all this.

[Asbjorn Jorgensson]

CBT players do not like the idea of convergence... What is the point of all that armour if we are playing a first person shooter with body armour, small head, perpetual walk mode (unless you are a light) with a damage of a pistol and the firing rate of a rocket launcher? (i.e. PPC boating) Hence the desire for RNG mechanics?

On the other hand people who say I want the weapons to hit where my reticle is aiming? Well that is happening now? Yes it is a skill. Yes we are playing a mech simulator and not mechcommander and table top. However PGI cannot please everyone and it depends on which crowd it wants to get? The TT crowd, the Novel crowd, the Mechwarrior crowd, the twitch shooter crowd? I think each type of player desires a different mechanic of how damage is dealt and how damage is taken. Cynically we would all say the crowd that earns them the most money.

I doubt PGI can please everyone... The mechanics will probably affect the crowd that stays.

[Riptor]

Quote

[color=#959595]Yet no other MechWarrior game had these things.[/color]

And they all where horrible horrible multyplayer games.

Thought really good single player games in my opinion.

[Gaan Cathal]

Asbjorn Jorgensson, on 22 June 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

On the other hand people who say I want the weapons to hit where my reticle is aiming? Well that is happening now? Yes it is a skill. Yes we are playing a mech simulator and not mechcommander and table top.

I think you're mistaking two things here. Firstly, you're conflating instant convergence and convergence. Non-instant convergence is an alternative to CoF that the FPS crowd like because it is mitigatable with skill and tactics. Instant convergence is why anyone who claims that current high-alpha killshotting requires 'skill' is either not actually an FPS player, or is trolling. It's incredibly simple in the current MWO build to hit with these high-alphas. There's leading for travel time, yes, but that's largely trivial with such large, slow targets, and without bullet drop or timed convergence it's the only (very, very trivial) thing stopping it being literally "click on enemy mech, get kill". There's no high-speed snapshotting with those weapons like there is in some FPS games with ~instakill weapons that do require skill because you're just not moving or turning that fast in anything that mounts them (you're not really in lights, they just get kinda close).