721 replies to this topic

[DarkJaguar]

The most face-palm worthy thing I've seen thus far is "TT Number's Don't work! But Eff you for thinking I would accept anything other than the ability to put 6PPCs exactly where my reticle is!" You can't balance a mech game with hit locations while having pin-point aim. The game will always favor a high pin-point alpha over any other form of combat.

[Pht]

The Cheese, on 04 July 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

I feel that this discussion isn't going to go any further because, as a couple of people have touched on, and you elaborated on, there will never be an agreement on which is the best way to go.

... and you know there will never be an agreement ... how?

Quote

Ultimately, the devs are going to go the way that they feel is best for the game, and no amount of forum warrioring is going to change that. Deep down, I think we all know this, but it makes us feel better to whinge a little. Or a lot.

I'd disagree on this, to a certain extent. It was the horrible gameplay result and all the complaints in the MW3 community that inspired the MW4 devs to at least TRY to fix the 'mechlab.

I also suspect that it was the MW4 complaints about constant sniper/poptart gameplay that led the MWO team to build MWO in a way (they thought) would fix or at least alleviate these problems.

The developers and the community evolve together. If anything, future developers tend to *come from* gaming communities.

[DarkJaguar]

Well said Pht,

While I won't defend PGI's past choices (lots of terrible ones), there's always the chance that they may listen to the community, and a well thought out idea supported by factually laid out evidence will go a long way toward that.

[Helmer]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

No.

They weren't.

They didn't use the combat mechanic math/numbers/eqations/systems those weapons damage and armor numbers were built for.

Namely, the non-pilot gunnery skill roll to-hit mechanic math, and the hit-location tables.



Of course it wasn't. The reason is blindinly obvious.

The numbers were designed for a gaming system that takes into account how well a battlemech from the setting can handle it's weapons; in game mechanic terms, the input numbers were designed for a combat mechanic which spreads the damage around in relation to how well a 'mech can get it's weapons to concentrate - and in no way can the 'mechs, either in the fictional setting novels, fluff text, etc, nor the setting those novels and etc are based off of ... get their weapons to concentrate as well as the MWO setting has it.

This is really a red herring and a strawman of sorts, this consistet reference to the "tt numbers don't work" ... when it's been pointed out repeatedly that of course the numbers don't work ... when put into a system they're not designed for! Either: utterly ignore the numbers, make your very own scratch-built combat mechanic and than make numbers for that ... OR: use the TT numbers in the combat mechanic they were built for.

I never said the Friends and Family used Gunnery rating, pilot skills, etc. They used the TT values for weapons, armor, heat, etc. YES, it was in a FPS mechanic. Which is what PGI chose to use. It was not fun using those numbers with the FPS mechanics, thus they changed them. They do not want to use the combat mechanic from TT.
This is not a simulation of the TT game.

They chose to start with the TT numbers, then make changes from there that made sense in a FPS environment.

If people chose to call it COD with 'mechs, then that's their interpretation, and they are welcome to it. I'll reference Victor Morsons post, yet again. Some people will call it a fun Mechwarrior game, some will hate it and call it something else. It can't be the end all be all of Mechwarrior games for everyone.



Cheers.

[DarkJaguar]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I never said the Friends and Family used Gunnery rating, pilot skills, etc. They used the TT values for weapons, armor, heat, etc. YES, it was in a FPS mechanic. Which is what PGI chose to use. It was not fun using those numbers with the FPS mechanics, thus they changed them. They do not want to use the combat mechanic from TT.
This is not a simulation of the TT game.

They chose to start with the TT numbers, then make changes from there that made sense in a FPS environment.

If people chose to call it COD with 'mechs, then that's their interpretation, and they are welcome to it. I'll reference Victor Morsons post, yet again. Some people will call it a fun Mechwarrior game, some will hate it and call it something else. It can't be the end all be all of Mechwarrior games for everyone.



Cheers.

I would disagree with you Helmer, while PGI chose to use TT damage numbers, they did not use TT damage values. There's a huge difference between a PPC that deals 30 damage over 10 seconds and one that deals 10 damage over 10 seconds. Every number in TT is based on a 10 second abstract, by taking the damage numbers without accounting for the time scale, you've failed to actually take the proper values.

MWO ER PPC (10 SECONDS)
30 DMG (3 SHOTS)
33 HT (3 SHOTS)

TT ER PPC (10 SECONDS)
10 DMG (X SHOTS)
15 HT (X SHOTS)

It's a pretty huge difference, and I could literally apply it to every weapon in MWO (I have actually, see the charts in my OP)

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 11:53 AM.

[Pht]

Helmer, on 04 July 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

Like I stated earlier, it would be nice if PGI was able to play around on their Public Testing server and try strict TT settings, then TT settings slightly modified for time variations, etc etc.

Which would be an utterly pointless waste of resources without using the combat mechanic those numbers were built for.

Quote

It's also fun to bandy about possibilities, but , at this point, if anyone is arguing that PGI should switch to this (Not saying anyone is) ....well.... it's a bit too far in the process to make a major overhaul.

I'd disagree. The freedom of an online release like this allows for people to fix their screwups. Should the guys at PGI have exploited their connections with JW and the catalyst crowd, and gotten hooked up with herb and mike miller, so that they would have known from the beginning that the 'mechs actually aim their weapons, to try and hit what the pilot is indicating and tracking with the reticule, and so they would have known that the TT combat mechanic set and still sets the boundaries inside of which the novels and such had to conform the 'mechs to, and so that they would have known that the non-pilot GSR to-hit and the hit-location tables described a 'mechs abilities to aim their weapons? ... dear lord, yes. All the had to do was ask randall (who i suspect they've been working somewhat closely with on the lore end) about it; he could have pointed them to the people who know these things.

They did say they wanted to get it right by the lore; they should have exploited these resources.

It's ok to take a mulligan when you have an honest oversight.

Quote

With the values in F+F is became too much of a "Wait and don't peek your head out because usually the first one to fire wins" type gameplay. Or, conversely, try and quickly rush around using terrain and if you spot them first, they died. It was way too binary.

Of course it was binary. The numbers + pinpoint convergence for all weapons of like velocity fired at the same time = (of necessity) 'mechs being destroyed FAR too quickly.

The armor values (external and internal) were never designed to take that much damage in a single location.

Quote

Now, to play devils advocate, this was 1) Only on Forest Colony and 2) some weapons were still not in (Gauss, Pulse lasers) and 3) The TT heat mechanic was not in.

Adding all those in, could very well make a difference. But a viable game accessible to millions? I'm not convinced. I'd sure give it a try tho.


Cheers.

If you want to see a decent devils advocate post on this topic, check my left most sig link.

Derrpy, on 04 July 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

gahhh! every time i see someone say just use the TT rules i want to punch someone, TT=/= real time, do you want a mech to take 2 mins to kill?

TT being turn based does not mean it cannot be converted into real time. You don't even need to use 10 second recycle times on the weapons.

[Pht]

Fate 6, on 04 July 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I want my weapons to go where I shoot.

You don't physically aim the weapons. Nor do you calculate where to physically aim each individual weapon.

The mech does, and it is not "godly capable."

What a 'mech pilot does do, is control a reticule on a hud (with a joystick) to indicate to his 'mech what it should try and hit, he also has to trigger the weapons - AND the pilot has to use the reticule to track this target. These are things the 'mech isn't allowed to do. (thus all the skill in manipulating a reticule is still necessary in a 'mech sim).

EDIT:

Poll posted on exactly this topic: http://mwomercs.com/...-mechanic-poll/

Edited by Pht, 07 July 2013 - 12:45 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

TT being turn based does not mean it cannot be converted into real time. You don't even need to use 10 second recycle times on the weapons.

Exactly, by formulating the DPS of the weapons based on their DMG numbers DIVIDED by 10, you now have a DPS goal. Your recycle and DMG numbers should equal this value, at least initially.

[stoph]

I think we should have to roll dice to see if we hit the mech and then roll another set to see where we hit. That would make the perfect transition from TT to RTS.

[stjobe]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I never said the Friends and Family used Gunnery rating, pilot skills, etc. They used the TT values for weapons, armor, heat, etc.

Sorry, no.

They used TT values for weapon damage, weight, crit slots, and heat per shot, yes.
They also tripled the rate of fire (decidedly non-TT) while using those TT values. Which is the start of all our woes.

They used TT values for armour, and apparently were surprised when TT values didn't work out after you tripled rate of fire. Imagine that. Weapons that are three times more powerful makes three times larger holes. Is that rocket science?

They used TT values for heat sink dissipation - but weapons generated heat three times faster than TT. Is anyone surprised that the heat system also had to be modified?

Is anyone surprised that taking *some* TT values as given and completely discarding other TT values makes for a broken system?

[Pht]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I never said the Friends and Family used Gunnery rating, pilot skills, etc.

Fair enough. That said, those not knowledgable might have missed the fact that the combat mechanic was (and still is) not in use in any way; that's something that simply shouldn't be left out of the discussion.

Quote

They used the TT values for weapons, armor, heat, etc. YES, it was in a FPS mechanic. Which is what PGI chose to use. It was not fun using those numbers with the FPS mechanics, thus they changed them. They do not want to use the combat mechanic from TT.
This is not a simulation of the TT game.

Which was and is obvious.

Quote

They chose to start with the TT numbers, then make changes from there that made sense in a FPS environment.

If people chose to call it COD with 'mechs, then that's their interpretation, and they are welcome to it.

... and some interpretations can be true. Others can be false. There is an objective baseline from which to judge these things.

Quote

I'll reference Victor Morsons post, yet again. Some people will call it a fun Mechwarrior game, some will hate it and call it something else. It can't be the end all be all of Mechwarrior games for everyone.

Nobody's asking for everyone to be happy.

Some of us just want a MW video game in which the 'mech's combat capabilities matter; just like they do in the novels and the rest of the lore, and we think others would find it fun to play as well.

Merely the idea of this was enough to spawn the birth of the entire MW video game genre.

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Exactly, by formulating the DPS of the weapons based on their DMG numbers DIVIDED by 10, you now have a DPS goal. Your recycle and DMG numbers should equal this value, at least initially.

You don't even have to do that.

What ultimately touches every weapon's refire rate (or, can I fire this turn?) is the 'mechs heat levels. so, if you want a weapon to fire faster than once every ten seconds, add more heat; slower, less heat. The overall heat mechanic will enforce the balance.

stoph, on 07 July 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I think we should have to roll dice to see if we hit the mech and then roll another set to see where we hit. That would make the perfect transition from TT to RTS.

Nonsense.

How well or poorly a 'mech can handle whatever situation is occuring when it's pilot decides to hit the triggers can easily be calculated in real time by the game engine.

Edited by Pht, 07 July 2013 - 12:09 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

stoph, on 07 July 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I think we should have to roll dice to see if we hit the mech and then roll another set to see where we hit. That would make the perfect transition from TT to RTS.

I feel that you have completely missed the key point of this thread. Nothing I have stated is random, everything is affected by the player, from the CoF to the chance for an ammunition explosion. The CoF numbers I gave still net a 100% chance of hit on the enemy mech at a weapon's max range with a well aimed shot below your heat threshold. How is this a bad thing? Sure, the shot may not hit the exact pixel you meticulously selected to pair with your wine and cheese, but it still hit. Why is it an issue if it hits the left torso or right torso instead of the center?

[DarkJaguar]

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but another thing that is bothering me...Missiles.

Why do missiles do splash damage at all? They're shaped charge weapons, they deal damage in a pencil thin zone directly in front of the warhead. Splash damage really should be removed at well, it doesn't feel right and makes the missiles more powerful than they should be.

[Solis Obscuri]

Wouldn't say ballistics have suffered any heat penalty in MWO - they build heat faster, but their damage-over-time is increased proportionally as well.

[MustrumRidcully]

No randomization example for dealing with convergence:
1) The torso reticule marks 4 convergence points. One for the left torso, one for the right torso, one for the CT; one for the Head. The weapons mounted in the respective position will hit exactly where you aim at with their aim point, but it's completely impossible to alpha strike and hit the same location if you use wepaons mounted in seperate locations.,
2) The arm reticule marks 2 convergence points - left arm and right arm. Mechs with lower arm actuators only have one convergence point for their arms.

This means a Quad PPC Stalker or an AC/40 Jagermech (my favorite build right now) will not be able to deliver pinpoint alphas, and only at short ranges will they manage to focus their damage in one hit location.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 07 July 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[MavRCK]

Random convergence -- NERF SKILL!!!!!!!

Sigh... stupid is as stupid does.

[DarkJaguar]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 July 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

No randomization example for dealing with convergence:
1) The torso reticule marks 4 convergence points. One for the left torso, one for the right torso, one for the CT; one for the Head. The weapons mounted in the respective position will hit exactly where you aim at with their aim point, but it's completely impossible to alpha strike and hit the same location if you use wepaons mounted in seperate locations.,
2) The arm reticule marks 2 convergence points - left arm and right arm. Mechs with lower arm actuators only have one convergence point for their arm.

This means a Quad PPC Stalker or an AC/40 Jagermech (my favorite build right now) will not be able to deliver pinpoint alphas, and only at short ranges will they manage to focus their damage in one hit location.

Interesting idea, but I still feel it fails to address the weapons balance problem. Sure, I have to take two shots with the 4PPC stalker now, but I'm still dealing 120 damage in 10 seconds instead of 40.

[stjobe]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but another thing that is bothering me...Missiles.

Why do missiles do splash damage at all? They're shaped charge weapons, they deal damage in a pencil thin zone directly in front of the warhead. Splash damage really should be removed at well, it doesn't feel right and makes the missiles more powerful than they should be.

It's currently set to 5cm or so, so it's basically gone except when the missile hits right on the boundary of two zones (hello Streaks!).

I agree it should go completely, but when they last tried it apparently made too many missiles hit CT, so they put it back.

[DarkJaguar]

stjobe, on 07 July 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

It's currently set to 5cm or so, so it's basically gone except when the missile hits right on the boundary of two zones (hello Streaks!).

I agree it should go completely, but when they last tried it apparently made too many missiles hit CT, so they put it back.

:psyduck:

[peerless]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

My translation of the TT rules moves the thresholds based on your heatsinks, similar to MWO, you just don't get an automatic 30 to start with. In TT "0" heat is equivalent to the heat capacity of your heat sinks, so 20 DHS means that 0=40. MWO on the other hand, "0" is equivalent to 30+Your heat sink capacity, or in the case of this chart 0=64.

Okay, you're saying the same thing basically. That translation is a lot like saying I'm driving down the road at 0 mph and the world is rolling passed me at 60 mph but I see its trying to say the same thing. Potato Patato I guess.