I thought I would take the time to say, bravo on this post, very well thought out and it captures a lot of the thoughts that I had as well, but in a much clearer way. Also, I wanted to ask, what software do you use for your data visualization? I dig it.
14
Open Letter To Pgi: Why You're Having Such Trouble Balancing Mwo
Started by DarkJaguar, Jul 01 2013 08:01 PM
721 replies to this topic
#702
-
-
- 2,299 posts
Member
Posted 28 July 2013 - 10:04 AM
Blinkin said:
disagree and try to misrepresent your own views like a shifty used car salesman trying to sell a broken car.
you mean the DIRECT QUOTES from your very own thread that you have as the first link in your signature AREN'T your views?
i did some font editing and other than carve off the intro paragraph that didn't hold any real information, i left all of your words in place and simply highlighted them.
does it make you angry that i have nullified all of your efforts to avoid using any reference to dice when you are directly communicating with people?
what that i generally don't like you and all of your self worshiping ways? the fact that i don't like how anyone who doesn't directly support your opinions in your view "doesn't like battletech or mechwarrior"?
I haven't misrepresented my views. Which should have stopped you from ever making this false accusation; lack of evidence.
you mean the DIRECT QUOTES from your very own thread that you have as the first link in your signature AREN'T your views?
Almost every single time you try and represent back to me in your own words what you think my system is you strawman it. Often quite grossly.
i did some font editing and other than carve off the intro paragraph that didn't hold any real information, i left all of your words in place and simply highlighted them.
You did an excellent job of trying to make the quotes say something they didn't. Unless, of course, you're going to try and say that you weren't trying to do anything with your font editing (giant-sizing certain words so they'd be seen easily and not doing so for others, de-emphasizing them).
What you've done is the internet version of "fallacy of accent" - emphasizing words in a statement causing the so-modified statement to have a different meaning than the original. For example... (original statement) "drink ye all of this." (falsely accented statement) "drink ye all of this" The first means "drink all of this." The second means "all of you drink this." Exact same statements... mangled by accent. Sort of like the sign:
we are not selling FREE BEER TODAY!
does it make you angry that i have nullified all of your efforts to avoid using any reference to dice when you are directly communicating with people?
It's impossible for me to be mad at you for trying to stop me from doing something I was never doing nor attempting to do. I first made the post that my first sig link refers to in 2011 (before you were even on these forums) and it referenced dice rolls in its very first edition; and I have in fact added MORE references to dice rolls to it... and I have had it in my signature since before you and I ever ran into each other.
what that i generally don't like you and all of your self worshiping ways? the fact that i don't like how anyone who doesn't directly support your opinions in your view "doesn't like battletech or mechwarrior"?
Oh, now I see.
I dare to believe there's such a thing as truth, that truth is objective instead of subjective and relative, that truths can be known, and that truths are a standard to judge statements by... and I actually carry this belief into action by judging other peoples statements by what I believe to be true... and this makes you mad.
That you behave as if this is justifiable grounds for insulting people is rather surprising, because even those who are the most hardcore relativistic, solipsistic skeptics ... do the exact same thing, every time they communicate in any form.
I wonder if you realize that by your own standard, you've defined yourself as a self-worshiping jerk. You've done the very thing that you have asserted justifies your calling me "self worshiping." You post as if you think certain things are true of the BT lore (that the MW video game is a part of the lore) and the MW series (that the FPS/Shooter mechanic is central to the MW series), and because I disagree with your conclusions, you've posted that I pick and choose what I like from the lore and that I don't like mechwarrior and that I want some version of eve online, or pipboy from fallout, or a return to a musket-fire gameplay mechanic, but not mechwarrior.
#703
-
-
- 3,195 posts
Member
- LocationEquestria
Posted 18 August 2013 - 11:55 PM
Pht, on 28 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:
so lost in your own little world that you believe everyone is as bad as you are. you believe that YOUR word is truth and anyone who disagrees is either wrong or ignorant. and just a little news flash your "objective truth" is based entirely upon a fictional world where mankind has spread out into space and feudal lords rule over planetary settlements. if you had personally crafted this reality and had control over the IP then you would get to define any "objective truth" that you want and tell me to f--- off, but you don't, you are simply a wannabe who can't accept how niche these ideas are and that people can fully understand and still think they are bad. you are nothing more than a BT {Noble MechWarrior} <-(i never would have expected the filter to block that one), deal with it.
what you want IS NOT MECHWARRIOR as defined by the long standing series of titles and expansions. aiming reticles that are FULLY FUNCTIONAL and define precisely (and because i know you will ask me to define precisely: if i put the reticle on the big toe of a mech then the shot i fired lands on that big toe (this example is specifically referring to lasers since no lead is required, but other weapons should be completely 100% without error predictable in their actions if i miss what i am aiming at it should be because i screwed up and for no other reason)) where the shot will go have been a staple for several decades. if you don't like that and you really must have your dice rolling then try something that is already there like mechwarrior tactics all of the table top goodness is right there. you tell the mechs who to shoot at and they do it for you just like you want EXCEPT (and this is the really good part) you get multiple mechs so you don't spend all of your time bored from the computer doing all of the interesting parts of the aiming for you.
Edited by blinkin, 18 August 2013 - 11:57 PM.
#704
-
-
- 86 posts
Member
Posted 19 August 2013 - 05:27 AM
blinkin, I don't want to come across as an *** about this, but maybe try and keep a bit more of an open mind about this issue? I've read some of your threads on things like fusion explosions and electronic warfare flamers, and have found some great food for thought. I don't necessarily agree with this post in entirety, but having read a few responses recently there are quite a few flaws in yours (and others') logic, and a few issues that many poeple probably haven't considered.
what you want IS NOT MECHWARRIOR as defined by the long standing series of titles and expansions.
True - However, the inferred argument that MWO should be defined by previous titles is utterly invalid. By the same logic, one might as well argue that MWO should have blocky polygon graphics and/or only allow a player to use a Jenner, Battlemaster, or the other 'Mechs in the "original" 1989 game, or hell, even disallow torso twist/tilt.
There are also other reasons why convergence may never have been implemented in previous games, such as the limitations of technology, or if not this, the limitations of developer funding leading to time and resource constraints. PGI can't, for technical reasons, even implement weapon convergence, as it apparently requires too many calculations for the server to handle and distribute in real-time.
Conversely, there are several (though not necessarily ones that I would agree with, and not necessarily all of them are valid) reasons why it is being proposed by several people/groups here:
- Implementing a vergence solution would reduce the regularity and increase the difficulty of obtaining high pinpoint damage
- Implementing a vergence solution would Increase the usefulness of spread weapons such as SRMs or LBX A/Cs
- BT Lore exhibits it, as depicted by Targeting Computers requiring firing solutions to hit enemy 'Mechs
- TT Rules exhibit it, as depicted by dice rolls that simulate a Targeting Computer's ability to calculate a firing solution that would allow a 'Mech to hit an enemy 'Mech with its weapons
The fact that previous 'MechWarrior games have simulated the ability to pilot a BattleMech in combat through the use of a Crosshair and (typically) pinpoint accuracy and weapons convergence proves this:
"That previous 'MechWarrior games have simulated the ability to pilot a BattleMech in combat through the use of a Crosshair and pinpoint accuracy and weapons convergence"
But not this:
"All 'MechWarrior games should use a Crosshair and pinpoint accuracy to simulate the ability to pilot a BattleMech".
aiming reticles that are FULLY FUNCTIONAL and define precisely (and because i know you will ask me to define precisely: if i put the reticle on the big toe of a mech then the shot i fired lands on that big toe (this example is specifically referring to lasers since no lead is required, but other weapons should be completely 100% without error predictable in their actions
True, to an extent - I haven't read this whole thread in a while, but IIRC this and most others dealing with the Pinpoint convergence (and heat, TT weapon statistics etc.) actually want weapons to be "predictable in their actions". A weapon's actions are still predictable if they're going to vary due to convergence, because you know that they're going to vary, and therefore you have to do your best to compensate for this known variable. Sure, you don't know the exact amount something might vary, but you know it's going to happen, so play accordingly, choose appropriate weapons, tactics, timing, range, etc. and do your best to minimise its effects. In most convergence solution proposals I've read, it's still possible to maintain a high degree of if not pinpoint accuracy, or something very close to it, but it would require you to modify your play style somewhat to achieve.
It is possible in a real-time simulation to depict and/or calculate weapon convergence in a number of ways.
One is the way that we currently have it. MWO already calculates weapon convergence, it just does it near instantly. You can check this by firing a laser and tracking it across points that are highly disparate in distance from you. The point of the laser will hit exactly what is under your reticle at all times, meaning that when your reticle moves from a 200m target to a 500m target, it will (almost) instantly adjust its angle of fire to perfectly hit whatever is now under your reticle. Your point about the laser above makes it clear that you understand this gameplay element.
((Personal aside - given the threads I've read where you've proposed realistic implementations of fusion explosions and such, do you or do you not agree that an instantaneous weapon realignment when a laser is tracked in this manner described above is physically improbable, if not impossible? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.))
Adjustments could be made to this system to make the convergence happen more slowly, but apparently this requires far too much information to be received, processed and disseminated by the server.
Alternatives that simulate convergence less precisely include randomised hit locations, cone of fire, damage spreading, the suggested "capacitance" or "targeting computer load" proposals, or even some sort of either fixed or manual convergence system. I'm not suggesting that any of these particularly should be implemented, but it certainly does appear that a large degree of gameplay imbalance in MWO springs from the ability of human players to precisely target with their weapons.
In any case, I personally feel that the precise accuracy we have does take away from the feeling of piloting a BattleMech, as depicted in the novels, lore and boardgame, though I can certainly understand that others don't feel the same way. I don't for a second believe that I am entitled to have my way, but I do believe that reducing pinpoint accuracy in some manner would be good for the game, and go a long way to making it feel like BattleTech for me.
if i miss what i am aiming at it should be because i screwed up and for no other reason))
True - However, "Screwed up" does not necessarily mean "Failed to keep moving my mouse in manner that kept my reticle in a position that would cause my fired shot to impact at the desired point". "Screwed up" has the potential to mean "Failed to compensate for terrain variance", "Failed to take into account my heat level", "Failed to notice the Jager on my six with dual AC/20s", "Failed to account for my damaged Gyro/Actuator/Destroyed Heat Sinks", "Failed to adequately compensate for my opponent's torso twisting/speed/evasion" or even "Failed to allow my weapons to sufficient time to converge on my target, or obtain a calculated firing solution". There are a lot of possibilities, and they don't all involve taking away everyone's coveted "Elite Skills".
where the shot will go have [sic] been a staple for several decades.
True (sorta) - But again, not exactly a valid argument, see above.
if you don't like that and you really must have your dice rolling then try something that is already there like mechwarrior tactics all of the table top goodness is right there.you tell the mechs who to shoot at and they do it for you just like you want EXCEPT (and this is the really good part) you get multiple mechs so you don't spend all of your time bored from the computer doing all of the interesting parts of the aiming for you.
I think the point has already been made above, but whether or not a 'Mech shoots for you or not in a 'MechWarrior game has been a decision made based on possibly technological limitations, and probably a desire to market games to a specific subset of gamers. It has not necessarily had anything to do with being authentic to the lore or the boardgame rules.
In most games, unknown variables factor heavily into decision making. If they didn't, everything we play would be like Chess, where for some grandmasters it's possible to know the outcome of a game after a couple of moves, because all of the variables are known and can be considered. "Dice-rolls" and other "random" factors are simply a means of reflecting the unknown variables of real life in a game, such that the possibilities need to be considered, and the risks contemplated. They aren't usually there just for the sake of being "random", they're usually intended to add variability to an experience, heightening risk, which causes players to put more thought into their actions.
Also, please realise that what is boring for you may not be what's boring for other people. It's quite possible with some of the possible convergence solutions that have been proposed that aiming and tracking would become even more skillful than it is currently and still allow pinpoint accuracy; players could need to adjust and balance speed, twisting, turning, jumping, manual convergence and/or aiming for specific components all while tracking a target and waiting for a targeting computer confirmation in order to get a pinpoint hit.
Anyway, I was bored, but hopefully there was something in that.
TL;DR - Lots of people have different preferences... I mean, duh?
blinkin, on 18 August 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:
what you want IS NOT MECHWARRIOR as defined by the long standing series of titles and expansions.
True - However, the inferred argument that MWO should be defined by previous titles is utterly invalid. By the same logic, one might as well argue that MWO should have blocky polygon graphics and/or only allow a player to use a Jenner, Battlemaster, or the other 'Mechs in the "original" 1989 game, or hell, even disallow torso twist/tilt.
There are also other reasons why convergence may never have been implemented in previous games, such as the limitations of technology, or if not this, the limitations of developer funding leading to time and resource constraints. PGI can't, for technical reasons, even implement weapon convergence, as it apparently requires too many calculations for the server to handle and distribute in real-time.
Conversely, there are several (though not necessarily ones that I would agree with, and not necessarily all of them are valid) reasons why it is being proposed by several people/groups here:
- Implementing a vergence solution would reduce the regularity and increase the difficulty of obtaining high pinpoint damage
- Implementing a vergence solution would Increase the usefulness of spread weapons such as SRMs or LBX A/Cs
- BT Lore exhibits it, as depicted by Targeting Computers requiring firing solutions to hit enemy 'Mechs
- TT Rules exhibit it, as depicted by dice rolls that simulate a Targeting Computer's ability to calculate a firing solution that would allow a 'Mech to hit an enemy 'Mech with its weapons
The fact that previous 'MechWarrior games have simulated the ability to pilot a BattleMech in combat through the use of a Crosshair and (typically) pinpoint accuracy and weapons convergence proves this:
"That previous 'MechWarrior games have simulated the ability to pilot a BattleMech in combat through the use of a Crosshair and pinpoint accuracy and weapons convergence"
But not this:
"All 'MechWarrior games should use a Crosshair and pinpoint accuracy to simulate the ability to pilot a BattleMech".
blinkin, on 18 August 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:
aiming reticles that are FULLY FUNCTIONAL and define precisely (and because i know you will ask me to define precisely: if i put the reticle on the big toe of a mech then the shot i fired lands on that big toe (this example is specifically referring to lasers since no lead is required, but other weapons should be completely 100% without error predictable in their actions
True, to an extent - I haven't read this whole thread in a while, but IIRC this and most others dealing with the Pinpoint convergence (and heat, TT weapon statistics etc.) actually want weapons to be "predictable in their actions". A weapon's actions are still predictable if they're going to vary due to convergence, because you know that they're going to vary, and therefore you have to do your best to compensate for this known variable. Sure, you don't know the exact amount something might vary, but you know it's going to happen, so play accordingly, choose appropriate weapons, tactics, timing, range, etc. and do your best to minimise its effects. In most convergence solution proposals I've read, it's still possible to maintain a high degree of if not pinpoint accuracy, or something very close to it, but it would require you to modify your play style somewhat to achieve.
It is possible in a real-time simulation to depict and/or calculate weapon convergence in a number of ways.
One is the way that we currently have it. MWO already calculates weapon convergence, it just does it near instantly. You can check this by firing a laser and tracking it across points that are highly disparate in distance from you. The point of the laser will hit exactly what is under your reticle at all times, meaning that when your reticle moves from a 200m target to a 500m target, it will (almost) instantly adjust its angle of fire to perfectly hit whatever is now under your reticle. Your point about the laser above makes it clear that you understand this gameplay element.
((Personal aside - given the threads I've read where you've proposed realistic implementations of fusion explosions and such, do you or do you not agree that an instantaneous weapon realignment when a laser is tracked in this manner described above is physically improbable, if not impossible? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.))
Adjustments could be made to this system to make the convergence happen more slowly, but apparently this requires far too much information to be received, processed and disseminated by the server.
Alternatives that simulate convergence less precisely include randomised hit locations, cone of fire, damage spreading, the suggested "capacitance" or "targeting computer load" proposals, or even some sort of either fixed or manual convergence system. I'm not suggesting that any of these particularly should be implemented, but it certainly does appear that a large degree of gameplay imbalance in MWO springs from the ability of human players to precisely target with their weapons.
In any case, I personally feel that the precise accuracy we have does take away from the feeling of piloting a BattleMech, as depicted in the novels, lore and boardgame, though I can certainly understand that others don't feel the same way. I don't for a second believe that I am entitled to have my way, but I do believe that reducing pinpoint accuracy in some manner would be good for the game, and go a long way to making it feel like BattleTech for me.
blinkin, on 18 August 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:
if i miss what i am aiming at it should be because i screwed up and for no other reason))
True - However, "Screwed up" does not necessarily mean "Failed to keep moving my mouse in manner that kept my reticle in a position that would cause my fired shot to impact at the desired point". "Screwed up" has the potential to mean "Failed to compensate for terrain variance", "Failed to take into account my heat level", "Failed to notice the Jager on my six with dual AC/20s", "Failed to account for my damaged Gyro/Actuator/Destroyed Heat Sinks", "Failed to adequately compensate for my opponent's torso twisting/speed/evasion" or even "Failed to allow my weapons to sufficient time to converge on my target, or obtain a calculated firing solution". There are a lot of possibilities, and they don't all involve taking away everyone's coveted "Elite Skills".
blinkin, on 18 August 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:
where the shot will go have [sic] been a staple for several decades.
True (sorta) - But again, not exactly a valid argument, see above.
blinkin, on 18 August 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:
if you don't like that and you really must have your dice rolling then try something that is already there like mechwarrior tactics all of the table top goodness is right there.you tell the mechs who to shoot at and they do it for you just like you want EXCEPT (and this is the really good part) you get multiple mechs so you don't spend all of your time bored from the computer doing all of the interesting parts of the aiming for you.
I think the point has already been made above, but whether or not a 'Mech shoots for you or not in a 'MechWarrior game has been a decision made based on possibly technological limitations, and probably a desire to market games to a specific subset of gamers. It has not necessarily had anything to do with being authentic to the lore or the boardgame rules.
In most games, unknown variables factor heavily into decision making. If they didn't, everything we play would be like Chess, where for some grandmasters it's possible to know the outcome of a game after a couple of moves, because all of the variables are known and can be considered. "Dice-rolls" and other "random" factors are simply a means of reflecting the unknown variables of real life in a game, such that the possibilities need to be considered, and the risks contemplated. They aren't usually there just for the sake of being "random", they're usually intended to add variability to an experience, heightening risk, which causes players to put more thought into their actions.
Also, please realise that what is boring for you may not be what's boring for other people. It's quite possible with some of the possible convergence solutions that have been proposed that aiming and tracking would become even more skillful than it is currently and still allow pinpoint accuracy; players could need to adjust and balance speed, twisting, turning, jumping, manual convergence and/or aiming for specific components all while tracking a target and waiting for a targeting computer confirmation in order to get a pinpoint hit.
Anyway, I was bored, but hopefully there was something in that.
TL;DR - Lots of people have different preferences... I mean, duh?
#705
-
-
- 2,905 posts
Member
- LocationLost
Posted 19 August 2013 - 10:20 AM
Good post Boyinleaves - summed up what many of us think admirably. Unfortunately it seems pretty clear that whatever PGI may have intimated at the beginning, what they want now is a twitch shooter with a light sim skin.
Ah well, thus are hopes crushed.
Ah well, thus are hopes crushed.
#706
-
-
- 140 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 19 August 2013 - 11:31 AM
Please PGI start hearing to your community. Just the number of posts and the details of some passioned players show how much the community cares about the game and the reaseon is because MWO is way from beeing as good as possible.
One more thing: PGI please stop thinking this is a minoritys opinion. This is a majorities opinion of your core players. The most important players for you, as they made the game possible in the first place and are the one willing to support it for years and advertising it within friends. What do you think the "silent majority" will think about this? Do you really care? The silent majority will have some fun or less fun and will leave the game and never come back, most likely never complain.
PGI please for all Battletech/Mechwarrior loveing people out there. Stop thinking you know everything better than a minority of community-players. Start listening, start communicating openly and respecting us as we deserve it. Let us save this game together!
Regards
Gori
One more thing: PGI please stop thinking this is a minoritys opinion. This is a majorities opinion of your core players. The most important players for you, as they made the game possible in the first place and are the one willing to support it for years and advertising it within friends. What do you think the "silent majority" will think about this? Do you really care? The silent majority will have some fun or less fun and will leave the game and never come back, most likely never complain.
PGI please for all Battletech/Mechwarrior loveing people out there. Stop thinking you know everything better than a minority of community-players. Start listening, start communicating openly and respecting us as we deserve it. Let us save this game together!
Regards
Gori
#707
-
-
- Overlord
- 1,854 posts
Member
Posted 19 August 2013 - 07:45 PM
The OP's math is sound, and what's more, he's suggesting a MWO that I would very much enjoy playing, and would prefer over the current unbalanced meta.
#708
-
-
- 3,195 posts
Member
- LocationEquestria
Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:15 PM
Boyinleaves, on 19 August 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:
a solid argument with several valid points
i skimmed your post and i generally get the point, but you are missing a large portion of the picture. that was not some ignorant rage post that i threw down as soon as i saw the OP. this is the middle of an argument that has spanned several months and more than a half dozen threads.
am i being rude and insulting at this point? of course.
the reason why i am this way with Pht is because any time anyone points out a possible flaw in his way of thinking he responds with A. "you don't get it" (and then no explanation of what you don't get) B. "you just don't like mechwarrior then" C. some horrible abuse of a logical fallacy claim. this is a recurring trend that i have seen other people subject to as well.
Malleus011, on 19 August 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:
The OP's math is sound, and what's more, he's suggesting a MWO that I would very much enjoy playing, and would prefer over the current unbalanced meta.
i agree the math is solid and this would make balancing the game far easier because you are limiting how players themselves effect the game.
i like table top games. i have had a solid ork army for warhammer 40k for years. i have looked at mechwarrior tactics several times and considered installing it as well as MWO. BUT i also like the basic feel of the past mechwarrior games. seeing dice modifiers pop up on screen and having my weapons miss just cuz would very thoroughly break my immersion just like it would if those things were slapped into a WW2 flight simulator like IL2. i don't want MWO to turn into an inferior copy of MW tactics.
going to Pht's system would probably solve most balance issues, but it would come at the cost of abandoning many of the advantages computer processing provide.
Pht, on 28 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:
What you've done is the internet version of "fallacy of accent" - emphasizing words in a statement causing the so-modified statement to have a different meaning than the original. For example... (original statement) "drink ye all of this." (falsely accented statement) "drink ye all of this" The first means "drink all of this." The second means "all of you drink this." Exact same statements... mangled by accent. Sort of like the sign:
we are not selling FREE BEER TODAY!
so then there is a direct negation associated with (i'll be forgiving here) most of the things i highlighted then?
i have taken several classes on argumentative logic and your ignorant use of random fallacies you heard on TV do not impress me.
Edited by blinkin, 20 August 2013 - 01:17 PM.
#709
-
-
- 2,299 posts
Member
Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:40 AM
blinkin said:
so lost in your own little world that you believe everyone is as bad as you are. you believe that YOUR word is truth and anyone who disagrees is either wrong or ignorant.
what you want IS NOT MECHWARRIOR as defined by the long standing series of titles and expansions.
- Yes, you think this, therefore, because you think this, it MUST be true, right? perhaps you could ... give reasons for your claim?
- All I have done is to have pointed out that the "personal creators of the bt reality who have control over it's IP" - have pointed out how the 'mechs behave in combat their fictional reality; and any game based upon that fictional reality that specifically requires that said 'mechs behave in combat in the same way ... should have them act the same.
- Becase think this, it's true, right?
what you want IS NOT MECHWARRIOR as defined by the long standing series of titles and expansions.
- I've never intimiated in any way that I wanted the aiming to be player-only as the previous games that had the name MW on the box have had it. Besides which, the previous games aren't a valid source for defining what MW is; they are derivatives.
- If you want quake 3 arena, go play quake three arena. You have just perfectly described the aiming as it happens in that game. You obviously don't want a game which has the battlemechs behaving as the people who write the fictional reality of the bt setting, who control the IP of the setting, describe them.
#710
-
-
- 2,299 posts
Member
Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:51 AM
blinkin said:
the reason why i am this way with Pht is because any time anyone..
points out a possible flaw in his way of thinking he responds with A. "you don't get it" (and then no explanation of what you don't get)
i have taken several classes on argumentative logic and your ignorant use of random fallacies you heard on TV do not impress me.
- Ah, the good old "drag an a universal into the conversaion that you can't possibly know" tactic.
points out a possible flaw in his way of thinking he responds with A. "you don't get it" (and then no explanation of what you don't get)
- This is a lie.
- Six pages of explanation of "what people don't get" : http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/
- Only if they really DON'T, by their own repeated admission that they don't want the game to have the 'mechs do combat like the mechs do combat in a game about ... doing combat in 'mechs.
- ... and now state a negative, which, if anyone wishes to disprove, will be virtually impossible. I haven't wrongly accused you of false logic.
- I'm not going to accept your multiple fallacies of accent as valid, as your question here presumes of me.
i have taken several classes on argumentative logic and your ignorant use of random fallacies you heard on TV do not impress me.
- Wow. Claim to have taken several classes on argumentative logic and than follow that with a claim that you can't possibly logically know. How do you KNOW, as a truth, that I "heard (anything) on TV?" In fact, can you even KNOW that I own or have access to a TV? Here's a source for you:
Fallacies of Ambiguity- Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
- Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
- Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says. http://www.stanford....alFallacies.htm
#711
-
-
- Survivor
- 23 posts
Member
Posted 21 August 2013 - 07:24 PM
I love this game but the convergence will eternally **** me off.
One of the drawbacks of assault mechs would be convergence. You have a ****-ton of weapons but getting them all to hit the same spot would not be easy.
This would make the game much more interesting IMO since it would no longer just be a CT targeting competition and weapons like the LBX and all missiles would be more interesting.
It also gives a great solution to the boating problem.
The game would be so much healthier and using partial cover would actually mean something.
One of the drawbacks of assault mechs would be convergence. You have a ****-ton of weapons but getting them all to hit the same spot would not be easy.
This would make the game much more interesting IMO since it would no longer just be a CT targeting competition and weapons like the LBX and all missiles would be more interesting.
It also gives a great solution to the boating problem.
The game would be so much healthier and using partial cover would actually mean something.
#712
-
-
- 3,195 posts
Member
- LocationEquestria
Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:15 PM
Pht, on 28 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:
What you've done is the internet version of "fallacy of accent" - emphasizing words in a statement causing the so-modified statement to have a different meaning than the original. For example... (original statement) "drink ye all of this." (falsely accented statement) "drink ye all of this" The first means "drink all of this." The second means "all of you drink this." Exact same statements... mangled by accent. Sort of like the sign:
we are not selling FREE BEER TODAY!
so then there is a direct negation associated with (i'll be forgiving here) most of the things i highlighted then?
i have taken several classes on argumentative logic and your ignorant use of random fallacies you heard on TV do not impress me.
(with respect to your attempt to work around having to explain yourself before) in this i am not asking you to accept my "fallacy" as legitimate truth i am asking you to clearly explain how i committed a fallacy when (as far as i can tell) none of the things i highlighted were ever negated in any way within the original quoted post (many in fact were already emphasized somewhat by you within that very post).
#713
-
-
- 357 posts
Member
Posted 26 August 2013 - 07:39 PM
I see I'm late to the party. Oh well. It's a well thought out post but I feel like we're far past the point of completely reworking all the weapons in the game. Not that I think it's a bad idea, but the prevailing opinion of the devs seems to be that they know best and I don't see that changing. For what it's worth I think adopting the TT values in the way you suggested would put you on a much better footing than what we currently have. It wouldn't be balanced but it would be a better starting point.
Convergence is an issue where I disagree though. I don't like random variance very much and so I would hesitate to implement a cone of fire. However, I've never understood why torso mounted weapons converge so well. Seems to me they should hit in a pattern almost exactly the same as where they're mounted on the torso with very little, if any, convergence. Balancing arm convergence then becomes the issue.
Convergence is an issue where I disagree though. I don't like random variance very much and so I would hesitate to implement a cone of fire. However, I've never understood why torso mounted weapons converge so well. Seems to me they should hit in a pattern almost exactly the same as where they're mounted on the torso with very little, if any, convergence. Balancing arm convergence then becomes the issue.
#714
-
-
- 299 posts
Member
Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:03 PM
The OP lost me at the mention of "table top". His suggestions, while addressing real problems with the game also displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding the mechanics of combat at the top level of play.
#715
-
-
- 299 posts
Member
Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:10 PM
Quote
The problem with this is that it's inherently selfish, and selfish points of view rarely if ever translate well into a game that is sustainable. If MWO continues to trend in the direction it is, I find it highly unlikely that it will survive long enough for use to even see the clan mechs.
This sort of comment only reinforces my opinion of the OP's suggestions. He sees this as a morality issue, with choices he disapproves of being morally wrong, with him as the decider of community morality. There is nothing wrong with alpha strikes or pinpoint weapons as such, the problem occurs when the alternatives are too weak to compete. Buff the other options to parity and the "problem" will instantly disappear. That said, so much is wrong with the games combat model now, that improvements to any single aspect would be almost worthless. The entire concept needs to be better understood by PGI and reworked from the ground up. Weapons issues are only one facet of the problem, and are not the most important.
#716
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 538 posts
Member
Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:44 PM
IMO the OP is a very hardcore tabletop fan AND a HUGE fan of world of tanks.
The day they even hint of a cone of fire random calculated hit mechanic, is the day I and a LOT of players leave. Its that simple.
This game is not turn based. Real time needs modification. Random hit is complete BS.
The day they even hint of a cone of fire random calculated hit mechanic, is the day I and a LOT of players leave. Its that simple.
This game is not turn based. Real time needs modification. Random hit is complete BS.
#717
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 538 posts
Member
Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:52 PM
Eldagore, on 01 July 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:
As I write in most every "balance this" thread I read:
No. FIRST fix hit detection. THEN we can actually see what is not working, and what is sort of working, and what is working fine. Right now, nobody knows, because nobody can know. HItscan/multihit(missiles) weapons can for any shot lose 0-100% of the hit detection/dmg registered to the target, even though it shows up at stats at end of match. AC20, gauss, PPC also miss occassionaly. However, doing all dmg most of the time on a big number like an AC20 is immensly superior to hitting an average of 50% with a mediocre to large number like lasers all the time. So AC40 jagers, PPC boats and gauss/ppc rule, because they are reliably hitting for big numbers while simultaneously still being broken like the other stuff is.
Once hit detection gets fixed, we can see what is actually what and go from there.
No. FIRST fix hit detection. THEN we can actually see what is not working, and what is sort of working, and what is working fine. Right now, nobody knows, because nobody can know. HItscan/multihit(missiles) weapons can for any shot lose 0-100% of the hit detection/dmg registered to the target, even though it shows up at stats at end of match. AC20, gauss, PPC also miss occassionaly. However, doing all dmg most of the time on a big number like an AC20 is immensly superior to hitting an average of 50% with a mediocre to large number like lasers all the time. So AC40 jagers, PPC boats and gauss/ppc rule, because they are reliably hitting for big numbers while simultaneously still being broken like the other stuff is.
Once hit detection gets fixed, we can see what is actually what and go from there.
And this here is probably the most important post in the thread.
#718
-
-
- 86 posts
Member
Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:50 PM
Allekatrase, on 26 August 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:
Convergence is an issue where I disagree though. I don't like random variance very much and so I would hesitate to implement a cone of fire. However, I've never understood why torso mounted weapons converge so well. Seems to me they should hit in a pattern almost exactly the same as where they're mounted on the torso with very little, if any, convergence. Balancing arm convergence then becomes the issue.
Torso mounted weapons on BattleMechs are installed on gimbles that allow them to track in multiple directions according to the firing solution that the targeting and tracking computer provides. They are capable of pinpoint convergence on a target, potentially out to the horizon in the case of lasers, given enough time for the computer to calculate the vectors. Their range of motion is also typically quite wide, and reasonably high.
In a 'realistic' convergence solution, there would be no randomness whatsoever, and the weapons would track 'predictably' as their firing vectors converge on the object under the target reticle. I say 'predictably' because the calculations involved are actually incredibly complex, and aren't really solvable via instinct in the heat of the moment. The complexity and number of calculations required to be peformed in real time as 'Mechs move, heat levels change, the reticle is positioned improperly and so forth are one of the reasons why slower realistic convergence hasn't been implemented in MWO; according to the devs the server traffic and load required would be too high. We actually have 'realistic' converge in MWO already, but weapon vectors currently converge almost instantaneously in order to keep server traffic low.
#719
-
-
- 2,299 posts
Member
Posted 30 August 2013 - 11:01 AM
StaIker, on 26 August 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:
The OP lost me at the mention of "table top". His suggestions, while addressing real problems with the game also displayed a complete lack of understanding regarding the mechanics of combat at the top level of play.
You lost me with this post, because you clearly must be a person who hates the idea of any gaming format besides the video game real-time format. Because you so obviously hate anything else, anything you say is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
Hey, if it's good for the goose...
#720
-
-
- 423 posts
Member
- LocationCA
Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:01 PM
Actually, I'd LOVE to have to wait 10ish seconds on each weapon. It would make each shot far more important.
28 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 28 guests, 0 anonymous users
