721 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 07 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Bringing up hard TT rules is the quickest way to kill or derail a thread. Yet folks never catch on.

"hard tt rules" spawned this entire video game series.

Quote

Sure, bring up things from the spirit of it...

It is impossible to define the "spirit of it" without having to resort back to the content that defines what that "spirit" means in gameplay terms.

Quote

But the minute you start specifically citing hard die roll numbers, anyone listening has probably hit the mute button.

Their loss.

Quote

Things should be kept as close to the spirit as possible, I agree, but the execution needs room for the developers to make something work in THIS game, not TT. Honestly your table top arguments would be much more applicable to Mechwarrior: Tactics than Mechwarrior: Online.

No. They aren't. If a person turns to the novels or the fluff text or anything else that actualy defines the setting, it all ties back to the combat mechanic from the game which spawned the whole series in the first place.

Quote

... no MW game ever will incorporate much of that stuff. Ever.

You have no way of knowing this; meaning this can only stand as a perjorative statement of your own opinion.

Quote

And it shouldn't - Table Top has a ton of horrendously broken rules and imbalances.

Which we should merely take your word for?

Or are you willing to really attempt to show me for a fool, by actually discribing what's "horrendously broken and imbalanced?"

You would be the first to do so. I've been all but begging for the people who say the TT is broken (in a way that makes it not work as intended) to actually do more than say that it is, and show how and why it is.

Quote

TT had it's own problems...

Every gaming system, by definition, has problems. The TT works for the things it was intended for.

Quote

...and honestly is due for a reboot of it's own.

For those who don't like the TT there's quick strike and battleforce.

Edited by Pht, 07 July 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[Helmer]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Here it is, straight from herb's mouth: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

The idea of piloting one of the mechs from the setting in combat in that fictional setting was a cool enough idea that it spawned the entire video game series and the battletech centers tha followed - having the 'mechs matter as much as they do in the lore is a compelling idea... so compelling that even indirectly controlling one in TT format is still fun.

Sorry, 1 last post. Noticed the Herb reference that I missed before. I'd take Jordan Weismans take on the feel of Mechwarrior over Herbs.

"..finding the right balance between universe and game system. I'll always lean more towards the universe because in the long run you'll fix a game system to make it work how you want to a universe you emotionally want to be part of..."

And remember, Weisman was active early on in the development of MWO

How did your collaboration with Russ Bullock and Piranha Games come about?
" ,snip>..Their talents and enthusiasm has only been exceeded by the talent of their team to execute upon the concepts that we came up with together. It has truly been a pleasure."

It seems Weisman feels this is close enough to be called a "Mechwarrior" game.



I'm sure this won't change anyone's mind, if this isn't Mechwarrior to you, I can respect that. As I said, its a semantic arguement.
The thread has been great and I hope you continue your conversation on what you would like to see in MWO. I know there have been numerous developers who have taken a look at the thread.



Cheers.

[DarkJaguar]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Sorry, 1 last post. Noticed the Herb reference that I missed before. I'd take Jordan Weismans take on the feel of Mechwarrior over Herbs.

"..finding the right balance between universe and game system. I'll always lean more towards the universe because in the long run you'll fix a game system to make it work how you want to a universe you emotionally want to be part of..."

And remember, Weisman was active early on in the development of MWO

How did your collaboration with Russ Bullock and Piranha Games come about?
" ,snip>..Their talents and enthusiasm has only been exceeded by the talent of their team to execute upon the concepts that we came up with together. It has truly been a pleasure."

It seems Weisman feels this is close enough to be called a "Mechwarrior" game.



I'm sure this won't change anyone's mind, if this isn't Mechwarrior to you, I can respect that. As I said, its a semantic arguement.
The thread has been great and I hope you continue your conversation on what you would like to see in MWO. I know there have been numerous developers who have taken a look at the thread.



Cheers.

The problem is that the relevant quote was from well before the current PPC meta. Balance has become MORE broken over time, rather than less so.

The other quote is just a discussion about the universe in general, and MWO does not feel like Battletech.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[SlothGoon]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

The problem is that the relevant quote was from well before the current PPC meta. Balance has become MORE broken over time, rather than less so.

The other quote is just a discussion about the universe in general, and MWO does not feel like Battletech.

Now I understand why Devs dont talk to people. Everyone wants to argue. You say it doesnt feel like Battletech, other people say it does.

And in the interview he does say the feel of the Universe is whats important, not the mechanics... wich shuold be adapted.

If I have to read "semantics" one more time I'm going to rage. It's like no one can agree with the Mod and say "yeah, we see that other people might see this as mechawrrior"


Otherwise.... i think the OPs post could work and be fun. I just see PGI scrapping everything and adapting.

Cool idea though!

[kilgor]

MWO would probably do better compared to Solaris VII rules as each round was 2.5 seconds. Heat on weapons and heat scale were quadrupled, but Heat Sinks and DHS dissipated at the same rate.

Here are the heat and firing delay values of the weapons from Solaris VII rules.

ER LL - 48/3
ER PPC - 60/3
Flamer - 12/1
LL - 32/2
Med Las - 12/1
Sm Las - 4/1
PPC - 40/3 (Min range 12)
LPL - 40/3
MPL - 16/2
SPL - 8/1
AC/2 - 4/0 (Min range 16)
AC/5 - 4/1 (Min range 12)
AC/10 - 12/1
AC/20 - 28/2
Gauss - 4/2 (Min range 8)
LB 10-X - 8/1
MG - 0/0
UAC/5 - 4/1 (Min range 8)
LRM-5 - 8/2 (Min Range 24)
LRM-10 - 16/2 (Min Range 24)
LRM-15 - 20/2 (Min range 24)
LRM-20 - 24/2 (Min range 24)
SRM-2 - 8/1
SRM-4 - 12/1
SRM-6 - 16/1
SSRM-2 - 8/1

And the Heat Scale for Solaris VII. I had suggested that the Fire modifier reduce damage by 1%, so at 96 heat, you would deal 4% less damage)

120 Shutdown
112 Ammo Explosion (Avoid on a 8+)
104 Shutdown
100 -5 MP
96 +4 Fire Modifier
92 Ammo Explosion (Avoid on a 6+)
88 Shutdown (Avoid on a 8+)
80 -4 MP
76 Ammo Explosion (Avoid on a 4+)
72 Shutdown (Avoid on a 6+)
68 +3 Fire Modifier
60 -3 MP
56 Shutdown (Avoid on a 4+)
52 +2 Fire Modifier
40 -2 MP
31 +1 Fire Modifier
20 -1 MP

So energy weapons were balanced due to their high heat, which the lack of a proper heat scale in MWO unbalances it. Ballistics and missiles were balanced in BT by a combination of minimum ranges, ammo amounts, and ammo costs. This is why R&R needs to be in the game, because it is a balancing factor. As I stated before, ammo should be brought back down in amounts because there is too much. Instead, there should be rearming stations a 'Mech has to return to at the base. Minimum ranges also forced a player to decide between greater range at a compromise of short range capabilities. Also, TAG would need to be cut back down, because it would give too much of an advantage to LRM boats and ECM and BAP would need to operate correctly. And UACs would need to fire singly unless doubletapped and be out the whole game if they jam, thus the potential downside of double fire rate as intended.

There were also To-Hit modifiers at different ranges which could be adapted as reduced damage to help Light 'Mechs survive. Then you could also reduce the armor values back down to normal.

E.g. An ER PPC does 10 damage at 1-140m, 9 damage at 150-280m, 8 damage at 290-420m, 7 damage at 430-560m, 6 damage at 570-740m, and 5 damage at 750-920m.

This would also change the dynamics of boating as well.

Edited by kilgor, 07 July 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[Nodrak]

I tried to read the whole thread before posting, but it became obvious that people are stuck on the alpha strike topic and partly talking about dps and effective dps. The point everyone seems to be missing is how the maps influence the game play...

PPC boats do less than half the DPS of any non laser weapon if you factor in heat. Their usefulness is highly determined by the map, the eppc less so. Right now the state of the maps favors the PPCs from the structure of the terrain and the cover density. After taking a good stock of the weapon stats in the game, I am far more concerned about Ballistic Weapons than PPCs, as they boast high alphas and high dps.

I would suggest making maps with more cover against direct fire weapons (urban style works wonders, the canyon map is good too), and some cover against LRMs (but not excessive). River City, Forest Colony and the Canyon all have pretty good weapon balance in terms of cover. The rest all favor the alpha/range weapons over the sustained/shortrange weapons. Adding some maps that slightly favor the brawling style would help greatly in this regard I suspect.

If you took apline peaks and made all the control points into bunkers or something that required close range combat, it would be an interesting change I think.

[Strisk]

peerless, on 06 July 2013 - 01:44 AM, said:

What is a medium laser?
MW2 and MW3 did it similar to mwo.

You sure you played MW2???? The lasers shot out colored projectiles that had travel times, also because of no server/game accounting for lag and being before broadband was readily available to most people you had to actually shoot ahead of someone to hit them.

This did generally lead to a greater spread of damage than MW4/MWO which allows you to actually shoot at the mech you want to hit. Maybe that is why people think these games better emulated the TT???

Honestly I think most people who think past MW titles "felt" any different than MWO played mostly single player only or something, because MWO is very close to the multi-player experiences I had with the previous games....

I think not enough people give credit to the devs for what they have accomplished...the game is not perfect, but the personal attacks on devs (both named and unnamed) are rude and uncalled for....

Quote

ALL shots in the TT use a hit-location table that spreads the damage around, and they do so in order to simulate the 'mechs ability to actually get it's weapons aligned and the 'mechs ability to calculate where to align the weapons in order to concentrate under the reticule.

I think the tables you are referring to also take into account the direction a mech is facing when you fire at it, something we have direct control over in MWO, and something that many players use to force more difficult shots and/or shots to hit locations other than CT/where the firing pilot intended.

I'd wager to say this game is closer to the TT than many people realize, they just don't go looking why it is, only why it isn't.

*edit* Fixed quotes

Edited by Strisk, 07 July 2013 - 06:28 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

kilgor, on 07 July 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

MWO would probably do better compared to Solaris VII rules as each round was 2.5 seconds. Heat on weapons and heat scale were quadrupled, but Heat Sinks and DHS dissipated at the same rate.

Here are the heat and firing delay values of the weapons from Solaris VII rules.

ER LL - 48/3
ER PPC - 60/3
Flamer - 12/1
LL - 32/2
Med Las - 12/1
Sm Las - 4/1
PPC - 40/3 (Min range 12)
LPL - 40/3
MPL - 16/2
SPL - 8/1
AC/2 - 4/0 (Min range 16)
AC/5 - 4/1 (Min range 12)
AC/10 - 12/1
AC/20 - 28/2
Gauss - 4/2 (Min range 8)
LB 10-X - 8/1
MG - 0/0
UAC/5 - 4/1 (Min range 8)
LRM-5 - 8/2 (Min Range 24)
LRM-10 - 16/2 (Min Range 24)
LRM-15 - 20/2 (Min range 24)
LRM-20 - 24/2 (Min range 24)
SRM-2 - 8/1
SRM-4 - 12/1
SRM-6 - 16/1
SSRM-2 - 8/1

And the Heat Scale for Solaris VII. I had suggested that the Fire modifier reduce damage by 1%, so at 96 heat, you would deal 4% less damage)

120 Shutdown
112 Ammo Explosion (Avoid on a 8+)
104 Shutdown
100 -5 MP
96 +4 Fire Modifier
92 Ammo Explosion (Avoid on a 6+)
88 Shutdown (Avoid on a 8+)
80 -4 MP
76 Ammo Explosion (Avoid on a 4+)
72 Shutdown (Avoid on a 6+)
68 +3 Fire Modifier
60 -3 MP
56 Shutdown (Avoid on a 4+)
52 +2 Fire Modifier
40 -2 MP
31 +1 Fire Modifier
20 -1 MP

So energy weapons were balanced due to their high heat, which the lack of a proper heat scale in MWO unbalances it. Ballistics and missiles were balanced in BT by a combination of minimum ranges, ammo amounts, and ammo costs. This is why R&R needs to be in the game, because it is a balancing factor. As I stated before, ammo should be brought back down in amounts because there is too much. Instead, there should be rearming stations a 'Mech has to return to at the base. Minimum ranges also forced a player to decide between greater range at a compromise of short range capabilities. Also, TAG would need to be cut back down, because it would give too much of an advantage to LRM boats and ECM and BAP would need to operate correctly. And UACs would need to fire singly unless doubletapped and be out the whole game if they jam, thus the potential downside of double fire rate as intended.

There were also To-Hit modifiers at different ranges which could be adapted as reduced damage to help Light 'Mechs survive. Then you could also reduce the armor values back down to normal.

E.g. An ER PPC does 10 damage at 1-140m, 9 damage at 150-280m, 8 damage at 290-420m, 7 damage at 430-560m, 6 damage at 570-740m, and 5 damage at 750-920m.

This would also change the dynamics of boating as well.

I'm not familiar enough with the Solaris rules set to really comment on it, but what do those numbers do that my earlier DPS based posts don't? As per my OP, PGI can set the recycle time and damage per shot to whatever they want as long as it equals out to the same DPS/HPS as the TT Values, I.E. An AC20 has a damage per shell of 1, and heat per shell of .35, but fires 2 shells every second, for a total DPS value of 2.0 and a total HPS value of .70. whereas currently the AC20 has a damage per shell of 20 and a heat per shell of 6, fires one every 4 seconds, for a total DPS value of 5.0, and a total HPS value of 1.50.

Nodraj, on 07 July 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

I tried to read the whole thread before posting, but it became obvious that people are stuck on the alpha strike topic and partly talking about dps and effective dps. The point everyone seems to be missing is how the maps influence the game play...

PPC boats do less than half the DPS of any non laser weapon if you factor in heat. Their usefulness is highly determined by the map, the eppc less so. Right now the state of the maps favors the PPCs from the structure of the terrain and the cover density. After taking a good stock of the weapon stats in the game, I am far more concerned about Ballistic Weapons than PPCs, as they boast high alphas and high dps.

I would suggest making maps with more cover against direct fire weapons (urban style works wonders, the canyon map is good too), and some cover against LRMs (but not excessive). River City, Forest Colony and the Canyon all have pretty good weapon balance in terms of cover. The rest all favor the alpha/range weapons over the sustained/shortrange weapons. Adding some maps that slightly favor the brawling style would help greatly in this regard I suspect.

If you took apline peaks and made all the control points into bunkers or something that required close range combat, it would be an interesting change I think.

When map selection becomes implemented, this won't fix the meta. PPC-ers will just elect to play on only long range maps. Balance must be fixed as a whole, if you treat only the symptoms you will never cure the disease.

[Kaspirikay]

Balance with more than 1 weapon type is impossible. Case closed.

[FaceRipt]

Maybe the problem is that everyone wants to compare MW:O or make comparisons to other games which really have nothing to do with it- CoD, CS, Quake, WoT, several mmos and many more that i can not recall.

On another matter about the TT, yes it has to do with the subject matter of MW:O as it is what the game is based on. But constantly bringing up the TT rules as the bible of end all be all of what MW:O should be and do.

Simply the TT rules were created for the Table Top because thats what works for the Table Top. Because it works there and you liked it when you were there rollin dice with your bros back in the 80's does not mean that those same rules are gona make for a fun and interesting high performance mech sim/shooter.

I'm sure they are gona get there eventually with balance, but give em time, when I first started ppc's were kinda **** till they fixed some of the hit detection, and god I guess people forgot about the bugs that could make the game unplayable or cause half your team to disconnect.

I'm sure when they get more of the systems in place that are supposed to be in the game when it launches,then I would expect better attention to balance.

I mean if you reall think they are that inept and can't figure out what they are gona do and your the only person who can plainly see how simple it is, stop sitting here on the forums spewing forth meaningless dribble, "CLICK THE BANNER THAT SAYS "IGP NOW HIRING" and shut it.

Edited by FaceRipt, 07 July 2013 - 08:14 PM.

[peerless]

Strisk, on 07 July 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

You sure you played MW2???? The lasers shot out colored projectiles that had travel times, also because of no server/game accounting for lag and being before broadband was readily available to most people you had to actually shoot ahead of someone to hit them.

This did generally lead to a greater spread of damage than MW4/MWO which allows you to actually shoot at the mech you want to hit. Maybe that is why people think these games better emulated the TT???

Honestly I think most people who think past MW titles "felt" any different than MWO played mostly single player only or something, because MWO is very close to the multi-player experiences I had with the previous games....

I think not enough people give credit to the devs for what they have accomplished...the game is not perfect, but the personal attacks on devs (both named and unnamed) are rude and uncalled for....

You missed the point but I'll try to explain. If anything, I'm more likely to be wrong about how MW3 handles the damage as sources are a bit vague on how things are valued. MW2 has fast projectiles for lasers sure... that doesn't change how much damage they do, how much heat they generate and how fast they do it. In MW2, an AC20 did 20 damage per shot and could empty a ton in 3-5 seconds. Is that what we want in a multiplayer mechwarrior? No, we certainly don't.

My point was that the TT folks, the MWLL folks, the Mechcommander folks and MW4 folks all want relatively the same thing. There is not this gigantic divide that everyone thinks there is in how the weapon damages should be handled for most of the weapons. In all of them, the medium laser dps comes out to about 0.4. In MWO, mediums are much more in line with where large lasers should be in terms of feel. Most of the players from these different games likely don't even realize how similar the implementations are although there are reasonable differences to debate over... damage and heat really aren't one of those areas where they are different.

So MWO took the board game damage values then made them all kinds of different recycle times which causes significantly large disparity in the the heat and damage values. There are MANY stock mechs that go from good to garbage because of this policy. There is a significant decline in mech building options that are actually valid to the point where we are probably approaching the limits already from the variants we have. Because of this design there isn't a good metric for what values a new piece of equipment should have. Because of this uneven distribution, balance patches will continue to be swinging wildly.

At this point, it hardly matters if the laser is hit scan or a 1000 m/s projectile. In the single player focused games, they used the TT damage values with different recycle times. In the multiplayer and strategy games, they adjusted the damage against its recycle time. MWO is in the first group and balance be distant for a multiplayer game even if it worked great for singleplayer because the AI didn't use it while the player could.

In the closed beta, the ML was 14.29 damage per 10 seconds. Accounting for double armor, this is less than one damage off of a classic Large Laser and with a heat of 10 heat sinks, was only 2 higher than a large laser. And GASP medium lasers were a problem(Large lasers for 1 ton? VERY YES!) so they got nerfed. Rather than dropping the ML to about 3.5 damage and correcting down its heat, they spiked its heat upward hurting mostly mediums and lights in the process. This problem is pervasive and holding the entire balance back. A number of the better changes actually trended in the right direction although holding the damage values as sacred cows is, like I said, holding it back.

Edited by peerless, 08 July 2013 - 12:41 AM.

[kilgor]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

I'm not familiar enough with the Solaris rules set to really comment on it, but what do those numbers do that my earlier DPS based posts don't? As per my OP, PGI can set the recycle time and damage per shot to whatever they want as long as it equals out to the same DPS/HPS as the TT Values, I.E. An AC20 has a damage per shell of 1, and heat per shell of .35, but fires 2 shells every second, for a total DPS value of 2.0 and a total HPS value of .70. whereas currently the AC20 has a damage per shell of 20 and a heat per shell of 6, fires one every 4 seconds, for a total DPS value of 5.0, and a total HPS value of 1.50.

The thing is BT rules didn't scale well with a faster pace where you ran hotter, which is why Solaris VII rules were introduced.

So, here's how firing an AC/20 once would look.

MWO AC/20 - 20 Damage / 4 Second cool down / 5 DPS / 6 Heat / 1.5 HPS
Solaris VII AC/20 - 20 Damage / 2 Second cool down / 4 DPS / 28 Heat / 5.6 HPS
BattleTech AC/20 - 20 Damage / No cool down / 2 DPS / 7 Heat / 0.7 HPS

A Solaris VII round was 2.5 seconds, so dividing 20 damage by the 2 second cool down, then the 2.5 seconds per round, we get 4 DPS. We can only assume a MWO round is 1 second and a BattleTech round was 10 seconds. Notice that DPS was similar for MWO and Solaris VII, but heat was higher for S7 rules because heat is a part of the game balance.

So, maybe MWO got their info from Solaris VII rules, but decided to use the 30 point heat scale in BT instead of the 120 point one in Solaris VII, then we would adjust the heat on the Solaris AC/20 down to 7 Heat or 1.4 HPS (7 divided by 2 divided by 2.5.

Solaris VII AC/20 - 20 Damage / 2 Second cool down / 4 DPS / 7 Heat / 1.4 HPS

OK, so now stats are similar to what MWO is using, but the lack of things like the various levels of shutdown, firing modifiers, and movement restrictions that were left out of the heat scale, still meant there was an imbalance.

Plus, there's the issue of how the ToHit modifiers and ranges were implemented.

In MWO, the AC/20 does full damage up to 270 meters and partial damage up to 810 meters.

In Solaris VII rules, you have 0+ To-Hit from 1-6, +1 To-Hit from 7-12, +2 To-Hit from 13-18, +3 To-Hit from 19-24, +4 To-Hit from 25-30, +5 To-Hit from 31-36. In Solaris VII, a hex is 7.5 meters, so the max range would be just like in BT rules, 270 meters. So, here we have yet another imbalance because the weapons fire further than they should.

I would have suggested a percentage of damage reduction based on the To Hit modifier, such as 10% per + To Hit and also increased the hex range to 10 meters for the AC/20 to have a max range of 360 meters but do 50% less damage between 310 to 360 meters since it had a To-Hit modifier of +5. This kind of modification would allow for a return to normal armor values and for Light 'Mechs to not get creamed so quickly as long as they stayed at range.

Edited by kilgor, 07 July 2013 - 09:13 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

FaceRipt, on 07 July 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Maybe the problem is that everyone wants to compare MW:O or make comparisons to other games which really have nothing to do with it- CoD, CS, Quake, WoT, several mmos and many more that i can not recall.

On another matter about the TT, yes it has to do with the subject matter of MW:O as it is what the game is based on. But constantly bringing up the TT rules as the bible of end all be all of what MW:O should be and do.

Simply the TT rules were created for the Table Top because thats what works for the Table Top. Because it works there and you liked it when you were there rollin dice with your bros back in the 80's does not mean that those same rules are gona make for a fun and interesting high performance mech sim/shooter.

I'm sure they are gona get there eventually with balance, but give em time, when I first started ppc's were kinda **** till they fixed some of the hit detection, and god I guess people forgot about the bugs that could make the game unplayable or cause half your team to disconnect.

I'm sure when they get more of the systems in place that are supposed to be in the game when it launches,then I would expect better attention to balance.

I mean if you reall think they are that inept and can't figure out what they are gona do and your the only person who can plainly see how simple it is, stop sitting here on the forums spewing forth meaningless dribble, "CLICK THE BANNER THAT SAYS "IGP NOW HIRING" and shut it.

Mechwarrior is the RPG line of Battletech, Mechwarrior uses Battletech rules for combat. Why then does everyone kick up a huge fuss, without apparently reading the content of the OP, when TT is referenced for a mechwarrior game? To what -SHOULD- I be referencing? Saying "Well, MWO is a real time game, and something completely new!" isn't valid, because it's not. Prove to me why the system I wrote wouldn't work. Show me numbers, not your "feelings" on the topic, because feelings are subjective, hard fact is not.

Also, IGP is the publisher, not the game's developer. Joining IGP wouldn't allow you to affect the balance of MW:O.

[FaceRipt]

mmk, lets make everybody play the way I want to by these rules that i like from said game that x do with y game and my system is better and yea.

Just sayin I have the right to dissagree with you thoughts and I do, Sorry you want facts and numbers for me not likeing you ideas.

damage- ac's best example ( if the smallest hast the same dps as the highest but the highest has to fire multiple shells to get the job done then why field the bigger weapon. Also do these bigger ac's just fire thier shells wildly after you pull the trigger and when its done with how many shells you want it to fire does it stop, again why field the bigger waepon if thats the case.

Heat i'm pretty ok with

Convergance- i'm sorry i think we could do with a lil variance but damn, I don't know about others but i want to hit what i aim at at almst all times, I find almost all cases of randomness junk, I CAN NOT STAND CONE OF FIRE. example if a weapon fires multiple rounds but i choose to fire one single round there should be no variance in my aiming if leading and accounting for drop-off. Ever have a sniper battle in battlefield from one mountian top to another whoever dials in first wins.

[DarkJaguar]

FaceRipt, on 07 July 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

mmk, lets make everybody play the way I want to by these rules that i like from said game that x do with y game and my system is better and yea.

Just sayin I have the right to dissagree with you thoughts and I do, Sorry you want facts and numbers for me not likeing you ideas.

damage- ac's best example ( if the smallest hast the same dps as the highest but the highest has to fire multiple shells to get the job done then why field the bigger weapon. Also do these bigger ac's just fire thier shells wildly after you pull the trigger and when its done with how many shells you want it to fire does it stop, again why field the bigger waepon if thats the case.

Heat i'm pretty ok with

Convergance- i'm sorry i think we could do with a lil variance but damn, I don't know about others but i want to hit what i aim at at almst all times, I find almost all cases of randomness junk, I CAN NOT STAND CONE OF FIRE. example if a weapon fires multiple rounds but i choose to fire one single round there should be no variance in my aiming if leading and accounting for drop-off. Ever have a sniper battle in battlefield from one mountian top to another whoever dials in first wins.

I'm not asking everyone to play by -my- rules. I'm asking everyone to consider actually playing by the rules of the game I (and likely they) paid $120 sight unseen to play. I bring up that point, because MW:O was billed initially as being "True to TT". It's not.

Next, AC's doing the same DPS? Where the heck do you get that from? Every AC I listed had a different DPS number unless you're referencing the MWO numbers as they currently are...

AC2: 4.00
AC5: 3.33
UAC5 x1: 4.55
UAC5 x2: 9.09
AC10: 4.00
AC20: 5.00

If you're referencing those numbers instead of the TT numbers I provided, you just argued against yourself there. As to what happens to all the shells after you pull the trigger. It depends on how PGI decides to implement, as stated earlier, if the AC20 was chosen to fire 2 shells per second, each shell would deal 1 damage per impact and generate .35 heat. And it fires until you let go of the trigger. The AC2 on the other hand could be handled differently, perhaps it fires in bursts with a reload in between. Really it doesn't matter how PGI decides to do it, as long as it follows the proper DPS/HPS values.

Convergence...

I really hate to bring up this in a video game discussion, but you started it. That sniper's rifle does not hit the exact point it's aimed at. It has an inherent inaccuracy to it due to variables. Wind speed, elevation from sea level, range to target, the number of grains of powder in the cartridge, the surface area of those grains, the concentricity of the bullet, the weight of the bullet, the exact diameter of the bullet, the way the bullet engages the lands and grooves of the rifling, how long it takes the firing pin to ignite the primer after the trigger is pulled. The list goes on and on. The end result is that a sniper's rifle is hand built, it's ammunition hand loaded. In the Marine Corps it's done by a single MOS whose sole job is to do that. They're 2112's. Even THEN with a hand built weapon and hand loaded ammo, the rifle zeroed in on that particular lot of maybe 100 rounds at most. Even then, you're still looking at an accuracy rating of .5 MOA, or one half a minute of arc. That translates to 1/2" at 100yds... THAT'S A CONE OF FIRE.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 09:15 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'm sure this won't change anyone's mind, if this isn't Mechwarrior to you, I can respect that. As I said, its a semantic arguement.

PHt refuses to acknowledge that anything is even wrong with TT and had quite the argument with me in the past that the AC/2 is the most terrible, pointless gun in the game.. and I never could convince him otherwise.

He will remain one of the hardest core of the "dice rolling MechWarrior" group that I can absolutely assure you does not represent all long-time BattleTech & MechWarrior fans that simply will not tolerate any variation - even when necessary for realtime game balance.

For the record PHt both Living Legends and MW:O did start with TT "Hard Values" and it was awful in both of them. REALLY awful. It simply is terrible.

[DarkJaguar]

Victor Morson, on 07 July 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

PHt refuses to acknowledge that anything is even wrong with TT and had quite the argument with me in the past that the AC/2 is the most terrible, pointless gun in the game.. and I never could convince him otherwise.

He will remain one of the hardest core of the "dice rolling MechWarrior" group that I can absolutely assure you does not represent all long-time BattleTech & MechWarrior fans that simply will not tolerate any variation - even when necessary for realtime game balance.

For the record PHt both Living Legends and MW:O did start with TT "Hard Values" and it was awful in both of them. REALLY awful. It simply is terrible.

MWO never used TT Values. Please stop saying this. They used the Damage and heat numbers with random recycle times. On top of that, they gave every mech 30 free heat capacity.

Also, for any of you still having trouble visualizing the Accuracy Variance (Cone of Fire) I have spoken about, A picture...


As is plainly visible, Your shots will still hit the target 100% of the time at your weapons max range, just not the exact pixel you want them at. Additionally the "damage falloff" can be removed, as the extreme range isn't there because of less damage, it's there because it's effing hard to hit at that range, and the "Cone of Fire" will solve that issue.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 09:49 PM.

[FaceRipt]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

I'm not asking everyone to play by -my- rules. I'm asking everyone to consider actually playing by the rules of the game I (and likely they) paid $120 sight unseen to play. I bring up that point, because MW:O was billed initially as being "True to TT". It's not.

Ok so it seems you have a bigger issue about being missled about what you spent your founders money on, but thats not my fault and does not mean that your idea of the way this game should be played is any more valid than mine stateing that the game is pretty fun and needs some balance but not as drastic as you suggest.

Just so you know i have spent over 300 bucks so far on this game and i enjoy it and your a founder and paid 120 bucks again how does the money we spend validate anything other than our opinions.

i dunno try askin for your money back maybe you'll sleep better at night.

[FaceRipt]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

MWO never used TT Values. Please stop saying this. They used the Damage and heat numbers with random recycle times. On top of that, they gave every mech 30 free heat capacity.

Also, for any of you still having trouble visualizing the Accuracy Variance (Cone of Fire) I have spoken about, A picture...


As is plainly visible, Your shots will still hit the target 100% of the time at your weapons max range, just not the exact pixel you want them at. Additionally the "damage falloff" can be removed, as the extreme range isn't there because of less damage, it's there because it's effing hard to hit at that range, and the "Cone of Fire" will solve that issue.

Cause yea that looks fun, if they are standing there like a target dummy i might almost always get a hit on what i am aiming at, forget about hiting something moveing or heaven forbid targeting a specific part of a mech like the gauss arm of a highlander or what not.

Let's just aim center mass and spray and pray sheesh.

i would rather have falloff and the ability to hit a specific spot when i get the shot right 5 times outa 10 if that shot means i crippled a target, rather than as you say 100% hit with random cone location at full damage, targeting and having the ability to hit what you were aiming is crucial.

Scenario- lets say 2 mechs both feilding same weapons and chassis come across each other at thier respective max range, both mechs have exposed ct and one shot should end eigther, if both aimed center and one got a hit on the ct netting the kill while the other mech due to the cone got screwed with a left or right torso hit. Does that seem fair or balanced? Random is not fair.

Edited by FaceRipt, 07 July 2013 - 10:13 PM.

[Strisk]

Why is everyone under the impression that travel times really don't matter at all?
In many situations projectile travel time and fall off makes a large difference in where you need to place your shot, this is especially important when making near shots from weapons in arms or long shots from weapons with slower travel time/more drop off (AC/20).

When trying to pop a light who is circle strafing you at 50m you cannot shoot directly at him with a projectile, you will miss every time, you must lead the target, which causes your weapons to converge on the ground under the target reticle, meaning your weapons are not converging at the distance where the mech you are trying to shoot is, meaning your shots will not all hit the same pixel of said mech.

It is much easier to pinpoint damage on an Atlas that isn't moving fast enough for your lead point to be on the ground, rather you can lead the CT by placing the reticle on his RT or LT or arm, this allows for much greater precision firing.

As far as cone of fire goes, either it will be big enough to make luck play a role in who lives and who dies, in which case I don't want it.....
or it will be small enough to not matter, in which case I still don't want it...