721 replies to this topic

[Helmer]

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

Holy mechajesus, your thread got a read and reply. I guess I'll give up on being polite from now on haha.

Naw, being polite is always the way to go. Except for a few try-hard trolls, this thread has some great , respectful discussion.

As Victor Morson so eloquently pointed out, everyone has a view on their perfect Mechwarrior online. For some, its more of a Simulation of the TT game. For others, it's more of a FPS.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Cone fire solutions or even randomness in shooting mechanics. Not too long ago I would have argued that NO competitive community would ever accept a game that used cone of fire or random dice rolls. I also think many would have agreed with me.

Except... there's this little indy game called World of Tanks. I heard they have a few people who play it.

A wildly successful game with a uber competitive community , as well as a burgeoning eSport scene. So, yeah, I'd have been wrong.

Had MWO started out with a more WOT type or cone fire solution I probably would not have been entirely pleased, but if it were fun , my dislike would have taken a backseat to my enjoyment. Ultimately fun trumps any reservations or personal dislikes of certain game mechanics. I honestly think the cone fire system would have more in line with the TT , and if implemented well, a lot of fun.

Is PGI likely to scrap their take on the Mechwarrior franchise and adopt a new core gameplay mechanic? Not very likely.
Not that this should be taken as "PGI doesn't listen" or "Why should we give feedback if we're going to be ignored?" PGI does listen, as evident by some of the changes they've made to community outcry. However, this is not design by community. Ultimately there are certain decisions they're going to stick by that they feel they can make work, regardless of how some of us might feel.
Very similar to building a car I would say. Halfway through the process it's easy to decide not to use a certain stereo system, or change the wiper blade brand. A bit harder to change out the frame from a 4 door to a 2 door.

And yes, ZOMG Garth does read posts?! Saaay wwwwwwwhhhaat?
That poor guy reads more of the forums than just about anyone, and is very much a punching bag for many things out of his control.



Cheers.

[DarkJaguar]

Garth Erlam, on 05 July 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

This is a great post here, thanks, I think it sums up the TT/MW4/MWLL/etc groups all vying for what is 'actual MechWarrior.'

Garth, I will edit my OP to be less frustrated/hostile if I can get you to make a response on -YOUR- thoughts on the content within (as that will be you proving me wrong). I wholly expect that you will preface your post that it is your opinion and not necessarily that of PGI/IGP, but I would still like to hear what -you- think about what I have said.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 06 July 2013 - 07:06 PM.

[Zyllos]

Helmer, on 06 July 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

Naw, being polite is always the way to go. Except for a few try-hard trolls, this thread has some great , respectful discussion.

As Victor Morson so eloquently pointed out, everyone has a view on their perfect Mechwarrior online. For some, its more of a Simulation of the TT game. For others, it's more of a FPS.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Cone fire solutions or even randomness in shooting mechanics. Not too long ago I would have argued that NO competitive community would ever accept a game that used cone of fire or random dice rolls. I also think many would have agreed with me.

Except... there's this little indy game called World of Tanks. I heard they have a few people who play it.

A wildly successful game with a uber competitive community , as well as a burgeoning eSport scene. So, yeah, I'd have been wrong.

Had MWO started out with a more WOT type or cone fire solution I probably would not have been entirely pleased, but if it were fun , my dislike would have taken a backseat to my enjoyment. Ultimately fun trumps any reservations or personal dislikes of certain game mechanics. I honestly think the cone fire system would have more in line with the TT , and if implemented well, a lot of fun.

Is PGI likely to scrap their take on the Mechwarrior franchise and adopt a new core gameplay mechanic? Not very likely.
Not that this should be taken as "PGI doesn't listen" or "Why should we give feedback if we're going to be ignored?" PGI does listen, as evident by some of the changes they've made to community outcry. However, this is not design by community. Ultimately there are certain decisions they're going to stick by that they feel they can make work, regardless of how some of us might feel.
Very similar to building a car I would say. Halfway through the process it's easy to decide not to use a certain stereo system, or change the wiper blade brand. A bit harder to change out the frame from a 4 door to a 2 door.

And yes, ZOMG Garth does read posts?! Saaay wwwwwwwhhhaat?
That poor guy reads more of the forums than just about anyone, and is very much a punching bag for many things out of his control.

Cheers.

This is the thing.

This is the only FPS game I know of in existence that has locational damage, multiple weapons at the same time, slow moving (relative to other FPS games), can take many multiple hits before dying, and different hit locations taking damage have unique effects dependent on what you have equipped or what was hit.

If there is any evidence that an FPS game needs a CoF, MWO is the prime example due to the above mentioned points.

[DarkJaguar]

CoF would be a pivotal factor, but there are several other keys aspects that are being neglected. Time, DPS, HPS, Heat Capacity, and Ammunition.

Time in that PGI does not appear to utilize any sort of time conversion. I am unsure if they did not read that a round is a 10 second abstract, or if perhaps they never played TT, but it makes a huge difference.

DPS ties in with time. Because the time scale is messed up, so is the DPS.

HPS is also along the same lines as time, but it's amplified by the next point...

Heat Capacity, In TT mechs have a heat capacity equal to their heat sinks. In MWO all mechs start out with 30 heat capacity off the bat. If you're interested, I can show some math as to why this is a very bad thing.

Finally, ammo capacity. In MWO you need 2-4 tons of ammunition per ammo based weapon just to make it most of the way through a match. Ballistics weapons are balanced in weight and heat that they should really only require 1-2 tons at most for an entire engagement. Remember, 1 round in TT=10 seconds real time, ammunition should be based on the ROF of a weapon, with the conversion being 1 shot in TT=10 seconds worth of ammo.

[Helmer]

DarkJaguar, on 06 July 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Garth, I will edit my OP to be less frustrated/hostile if I can get you to make a response on -YOUR- thoughts on the content within (as that will be you proving me wrong). I wholly expect that you will preface your post that it is your opinion and not necessarily that of PGI/IGP, but I would still like to hear what -you- think about what I have said.

I'll make sure he sees this.

Being the community manager must be frustrating at times. Sometimes you want to say things, but can't. Don't want to say things, but are required. Sometimes you have to toe the company line, and sometimes you have to eat crow for issues outside your control.

Zyllos, on 06 July 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

This is the thing.

This is the only FPS game I know of in existence that has locational damage, multiple weapons at the same time, slow moving (relative to other FPS games), can take many multiple hits before dying, and different hit locations taking damage have unique effects dependent on what you have equipped or what was hit.

If there is any evidence that an FPS game needs a CoF, MWO is the prime example due to the above mentioned points.

And I'm sure some people would love it. If it were how MWO had chosen to implement firing mechanics , as a more simulation of the board game, it probably would have been received well by both hardcores and casuals.
Look at WOT. Would anyone say it was a hardcore Tank Sim? Hell no. Yet its popular with both very competitive teams, and casuals.
PGI chose a different route and wants to make it the best it can be. Even if it's not as "true" to a simulation of the TT.




Cheers.

[Helican]

Helmer, on 06 July 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

I'll make sure he sees this.

Being the community manager must be frustrating at times. Sometimes you want to say things, but can't. Don't want to say things, but are required. Sometimes you have to toe the company line, and sometimes you have to eat crow for issues outside your control.





And I'm sure some people would love it. If it were how MWO had chosen to implement firing mechanics , as a more simulation of the board game, it probably would have been received well by both hardcores and casuals.
Look at WOT. Would anyone say it was a hardcore Tank Sim? Hell no. Yet its popular with both very competitive teams, and casuals.
PGI chose a different route and wants to make it the best it can be. Even if it's not as "true" to a simulation of the TT.




Cheers.

So basically, because a poor decision was made, the poor decision needs to be continued?

[DarkJaguar]

Helmer, on 06 July 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

I'll make sure he sees this.

Being the community manager must be frustrating at times. Sometimes you want to say things, but can't. Don't want to say things, but are required. Sometimes you have to toe the company line, and sometimes you have to eat crow for issues outside your control.





And I'm sure some people would love it. If it were how MWO had chosen to implement firing mechanics , as a more simulation of the board game, it probably would have been received well by both hardcores and casuals.
Look at WOT. Would anyone say it was a hardcore Tank Sim? Hell no. Yet its popular with both very competitive teams, and casuals.
PGI chose a different route and wants to make it the best it can be. Even if it's not as "true" to a simulation of the TT.




Cheers.

Helmer,

Thank you in advance for bringing this to Garth's attention, secondly, I think what all of us want -MOST- is a game that feels like Battletech should. PPCs are relatively uncommon on loadouts because they're expensive, and generate a TON of heat. The automatic 30 points of heat cap basically guarantees 4+ PPCs anywhere you would have only found one or two before. As much as people say that you can not take TT values and translate them into a real-time game, I hope that my earlier math (and the math of so many wonderful members of the community) have proven otherwise, and that at the very least PGI takes a long hard look at some of the great ideas in this thread, and possibly uses them! How awesome would that be? A shining example that PGI does in fact listen to it's beta play-testers.

Helican, on 06 July 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

So basically, because a poor decision was made, the poor decision needs to be continued?

Helican,

The amount of time and effort that has gone into the current levels of balance is astonishing. It would take a TON of convincing to basically scrap months of work in favor of an unproven system. The poor decision will continue at the very least until other ideas have been tested, but what I was talking about in the OP is a complete rework of the balance system from the ground floor, that's not to be taken lightly by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 06 July 2013 - 07:26 PM.

[Helmer]

Helican, on 06 July 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

So basically, because a poor decision was made, the poor decision needs to be continued?

I've referrenced Victor Morsons fine post several times already, and I'll reference it again. There are many views of how Mechwarrior feels, or should be. Some people LOVE MW4, yet the values it uses for weapon damage vary wildly from what TT was. Mechwarrior Living Legends was also a great feeling Mechwarrior/Battletech experience. And again, their implementation was different from all others.
Who says it was a poor decision? I'm sure there are those who feel it is and would rather see it implemented differently. It's simply a different way of viewing the Mechwarrior experience. I cannot blame PGI for wanting to continue on with their vision of it. They obviously don't view it as a poor decision.

The Mechwarrior IP hasn't seen a game released in roughly 12 years? There's been plenty of time for other companies to step in and do something with it. PGI even shopped it around to publishers. No one was interested in the IP.
If PGI and IGP are the ones putting up the money to implement a new release of the storied IP, I'm happy for them. All of their decisions might not coincide with what I might personally pick, but I give them credit that, as such a small company, they are trying something big with it.

I can either play it or not.Personally, I'm having fun with it (Although much , much less with the current Meta)

DarkJaguar, on 06 July 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

Helmer,

Thank you in advance for bringing this to Garth's attention, secondly, I think what all of us want -MOST- is a game that feels like Battletech should. PPCs are relatively uncommon on loadouts because they're expensive, and generate a TON of heat. The automatic 30 points of heat cap basically guarantees 4+ PPCs anywhere you would have only found one or two before. As much as people say that you can not take TT values and translate them into a real-time game, I hope that my earlier math (and the math of so many wonderful members of the community) have proven otherwise, and that at the very least PGI takes a long hard look at some of the great ideas in this thread, and possibly uses them! How awesome would that be? A shining example that PGI does in fact listen to it's beta play-testers.



Helican,

The amount of time and effort that has gone into the current levels of balance is astonishing. It would take a TON of convincing to basically scrap months of work in favor of an unproven system. The poor decision will continue at the very least until other ideas have been tested, but what I was talking about in the OP is a complete rework of the balance system from the ground floor, that's not to be taken lightly by any stretch of the imagination.

I think it would have been a very faithful recreation of the TT experience. It also would have sidestepped some of the current issues. Granted, there probably would have been other challenges, but it would have been a fairly good implementation of the firing mechanics.
And there'd probably STILL be people saying it wasn't TT enough



Cheers.

[Zyllos]

I am fine with the changing of values from the TT, but a CoF is not wholly needed because it simulates the TT, it's needed to bring balance to MWO.

Multiple weapons all being pin point accurate is just not an ideal situation for any FPS and is why none exist in the market.

The only games that had no/little CoF required the players to move around extremely fast, like Quake or Unreal.

Either way...

***EDIT: Also, previous MW games also did not have much of a CoF implemented and stuffer from the very same symptoms the previous MW titles had.

I think it's a bolder step to make the decision that weapons don't land where you fire but instead players hedge their shots based on the current situation. Skill comes into situation assessment and how precise you can control a CoF to hedge the chances to land shots where you need them.***

Edited by Zyllos, 06 July 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[Aullido]

I am a legendary founder, I care for MechWarrior.

I am deeply disappointed. This game is not MechWarrior. It is not a simulator.

Said that I must agree with the OP:

Convergence does not equal to randomness. I think we can get a more challenging game if convergence is not adjustable. You still can get pin point aim to the weapon's range. At close range you still can aim, but you will adjust your shot sightly to hit the spot you want, some shots will go large. This also means that mechs will need to carry a mix of range weapons.

[DarkJaguar]

As Zyllos said, having a cone of fire does not necessarily mean your shots will be random. What it does mean is that aiming for center of mass becomes the standard, whereas surgically blowing off whatever location you choose becomes a much trickier proposition.

And going with Aullido's point, by fixing the convergence point at the maximum range in conjunction with a slight cone of fire you now have a skill based system that also utilizes the full armor of the mech instead of just the armor value of the most vulnerable location.

Thank you both for your replies!

[peerless]

Helmer, on 06 July 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

And yes, ZOMG Garth does read posts?! Saaay wwwwwwwhhhaat?
That poor guy reads more of the forums than just about anyone, and is very much a punching bag for many things out of his control.

For context, my first line was in relation to a previous post I made in this thread where I suggested the OP be more concise and less negative. I was saying, "well I guess I was wrong".

[DarkJaguar]

peerless, on 06 July 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

For context, my first line was in relation to a previous post I made in this thread where I suggested the OP be more concise and less negative. I was saying, "well I guess I was wrong".

It wasn't the frustration of my OP that got the reply, it was the positive discussion that happened afterward that garnered Garth's attention I'm sure.

[Sereglach]

DarkJaguar, on 06 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Heat Capacity, In TT mechs have a heat capacity equal to their heat sinks. In MWO all mechs start out with 30 heat capacity off the bat. If you're interested, I can show some math as to why this is a very bad thing.

The bit of information in here about heat sinks is something that I was not aware of before. Thank you very much for pointing it out, DarkJaguar. If it's in the original write-up I must have overlooked it or missed it. All mechs having a 30 base heat does drastically change the mechanics of the game. At the same token, changing that feature alone to be more in line with tabletop would drastically alter the balance of the game for the better. I had realized they have a good bit of leeway with the original heat capacity of a mech but I didn't realize the numbers were that high. If that feature is left unchecked in at least some regard it continues to promote the inherent uselessness of single heat sinks and promotes the extreme boating meta that we have now.

However, this brings to mind another question that can affect this balancing as well. We know that double heat sinks offer 1.4x heat dissipation instead of true double dissipation. Do they offer double heat capacity boosts to the mech? It's been 20+ years since I've played pure TT, but from what I remember you tallied your heat, then dumped it at the end of the round (based on your heat sinks) and any leftover went into your heat pool. The heat pool equaled a generic scale that applied to everyone. Since the heat scale is a generic pool that applied to everyone equally, then heat sink type shouldn't be having different effects on your maximum capacity, only how fast you cool.

This alone would level the playing field if a mech can shove in 30 single heat sinks by giving up tonnage to utilize the crit space, while someone else is sacrificing crit space and can only field 17 doubles, but they have extra tons for weapons. For the MWO Simulator mechanics, the 30 single heat sinks could give a person 30 extra capacity, but they're only cooling 30 heat per unit of time. On the other hand, the 17 doubles is going to only give a person 17 extra capacity, but they'd be cooling 34 heat per unit of time. With this kind of a setup, single heat sinks could create higher alpha builds, but double heat sinks would let the user cool down faster.

To balance this in the future, since clan doubles only take two crit slots instead of three, clan doubles could cool at something like 1.7 or 1.8 per unit of time per heat sink. It's not quite double, but it's close enough that the extra crit slot (and it's usability) makes the selection of heat sink type worth it. We're trying to have give and take, and balance . . . making everything useful to at least some extent. Granted, in this situation single heat sinks are still not quite as desirable as doubles (fewer heavy tonnage weapons leave lots of crit space open while many single heat sinks detract from tonnage for weapons), but it at least makes them more viable, and it would keep the trial mechs from being so terrible.

Anyway, it's a few more thoughts to consider. I hope it makes sense as I know I can be rather addle minded. Regardless, everything still boils down to one severely overlooked metric from nearly every MechWarrior game . . . time.

[LastPaladin]

Good post.

Additional insight could be gained if you also compare the DPS multiplier to the HPS multiplier. For example, AC/2 does 10 DPSm / 20 HPSm = 0.5 effective multiplier for sustained firing. For a PPC it is 1.25/2.00 = 0.625 effective multiplier. A medium laser is 1.25/3.33 = 0.375 effective multiplier. SRM6 is 1.0/2.5 = 0.4 effective multiplier.

The nice thing about looking at a comparison like this is that, because TT was fairly well balanced, you don't have to worry too much about some other variables like range, weight, ammo per ton, slots, etc. You can focus on damage, heat, and rate of fire and get a pretty clear picture of which weapons are really the neglected stepchildren in the current game balance.

[peerless]

I missed that comment about heat capacity. That is not correct. In the TT game, all mechs sink heat equal to their heat sinks each 10 second turn. All mechs have a 30 heat capacity for determining ammo explosions and shutdown. It can go up to 60 if you use some optional rule but actually getting to 60 without exploding or shutting down is nearly impossible.

Am I misunderstanding the original quote?

Edited by peerless, 06 July 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[Aullido]

Don't forget that TT doesn't have cycle times. It was only a heat limitation / range limitation about the weapons you choose to fire.

[Helican]

DarkJaguar, on 06 July 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

Helmer,

Thank you in advance for bringing this to Garth's attention, secondly, I think what all of us want -MOST- is a game that feels like Battletech should. PPCs are relatively uncommon on loadouts because they're expensive, and generate a TON of heat. The automatic 30 points of heat cap basically guarantees 4+ PPCs anywhere you would have only found one or two before. As much as people say that you can not take TT values and translate them into a real-time game, I hope that my earlier math (and the math of so many wonderful members of the community) have proven otherwise, and that at the very least PGI takes a long hard look at some of the great ideas in this thread, and possibly uses them! How awesome would that be? A shining example that PGI does in fact listen to it's beta play-testers.



Helican,

The amount of time and effort that has gone into the current levels of balance is astonishing. It would take a TON of convincing to basically scrap months of work in favor of an unproven system. The poor decision will continue at the very least until other ideas have been tested, but what I was talking about in the OP is a complete rework of the balance system from the ground floor, that's not to be taken lightly by any stretch of the imagination.

No one ever said it "was to be taken lightly". However, you strongly insinuated that regardless of anything else, our present system will continue. Which is fine, it just makes the game COD with robots instead of a MW game.

[DarkJaguar]

peerless, on 06 July 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

I missed that comment about heat capacity. That is not correct. In the TT game, all mechs sink heat equal to their heat sinks each 10 second turn. All mechs have a 30 heat capacity for determining ammo explosions and shutdown. It can go up to 60 if you use some optional rule but actually getting to 60 without exploding or shutting down is nearly impossible.

Am I misunderstanding the original quote?

The following charts use the following build under my proposed system and under MWO's system
STK-3F




Please keep in mind that the ER PPCs in my chart could just as well fire twice in 10 seconds for 5DMG and 7.5HT per shot instead of once for 10DMG and 15HT, For simplicity I chose to just have it fire once.

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.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 11:14 AM.

[Pht]

Helmer, on 03 July 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

In friends and family all the numbers were exact to TT values.

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.

Quote

It honestly, was not fun.

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.