721 replies to this topic

[Orzorn]

DarkJaguar, on 12 July 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I love your guys' recruiting video Orzorn, who did the editing on it?

Celestial records and edits all the videos (unless we send him clips of personal play, which rarely happens).

His name is SigmaLanceLeader on Youtube.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

Randomness is not something that belongs in a game of skill.

Ah yes, the battle cry of someone who tried to play Counterstrike once, got his **** kicked in, and decided to blame the game instead. The only people who believe that quote are people bad at games.

Edited by TOGSolid, 12 July 2013 - 12:08 PM.

[RickySpanish]

Today is a project deadline for one of our games and the only reason I'm typing this is because my dev tools are currently trying to figure out why the Christ I've somehow broken the build. So you know what? Screw you captain hindsight, I'm siding with PGI on this one.

Frankly comparing this game to the table top version, when one is played on a table and another as an FPS with mouse and keyboard, is so utterly and completely pointless that I'm surprised that people are STILL doing it. Balancing a video game is a ridiculously difficult job, and posting these gigantic 'armchair' threads with provocative polls to try and shove your point of view down the throats of the devs just makes you seem like an donkey.

The fact of the matter is that there is NO WAY the TT rules would EVER fit into an FPS variant of the game, so some form of balancing and restructuring has to be undertaken. A result of this is that the game is not balanced. Furthermore, as the content of MWO is forever growing and players are finding new metas and optimal builds as patches role out, PGI will be balancing the game on a continual basis.

It's easy to look at the game in hindsight and say "PGI you guys suck why did you do x because now we have y when it should have been z", but would you have had to foresight to have avoided the current game play balance issues? No! Of course not.

PGI have done a great job with Mechwarrior Online. The balance is pretty good, with the long range meta being a little dominating but a new meta is sure to roll around some time soon. I look forward to seeing how the game play, balance and effective mech loadouts will change as the developers continue to add content to the game.

[DarkJaguar]

RickySpanish, on 12 July 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Today is a project deadline for one of our games and the only reason I'm typing this is because my dev tools are currently trying to figure out why the Christ I've somehow broken the build. So you know what? Screw you captain hindsight, I'm siding with PGI on this one.

Frankly comparing this game to the table top version, when one is played on a table and another as an FPS with mouse and keyboard, is so utterly and completely pointless that I'm surprised that people are STILL doing it. Balancing a video game is a ridiculously difficult job, and posting these gigantic 'armchair' threads with provocative polls to try and shove your point of view down the throats of the devs just makes you seem like an donkey.

The fact of the matter is that there is NO WAY the TT rules would EVER fit into an FPS variant of the game, so some form of balancing and restructuring has to be undertaken. A result of this is that the game is not balanced. Furthermore, as the content of MWO is forever growing and players are finding new metas and optimal builds as patches role out, PGI will be balancing the game on a continual basis.

It's easy to look at the game in hindsight and say "PGI you guys suck why did you do x because now we have y when it should have been z", but would you have had to foresight to have avoided the current game play balance issues? No! Of course not.

PGI have done a great job with Mechwarrior Online. The balance is pretty good, with the long range meta being a little dominating but a new meta is sure to roll around some time soon. I look forward to seeing how the game play, balance and effective mech loadouts will change as the developers continue to add content to the game.

Why won't TT values work? You have offered no proof whatsoever, just an anecdotal thought that you, as a dev, wouldn't fix balance because it takes too much time, and "meh".

[Sereglach]

I love all of the new information that has been put up. It helps correlate all of the other information and allows the proposed system to shine. I put my vote up and I hope that we do see this system implemented in the test servers. I have a feeling once people get a taste of it on the test servers, they'll press to see it implemented into the main game. It would be a complete and effective rebalance to the game.

Contrary to what some people believe, I do not think it's too late to do a sweeping overhaul and rebalance of the games variables . . . because for 2 out of the three aspects, that's all that is changing . . . variables of the game.

* * * * * *

Towards Ricky Spanish . . . if you truly believe that there is no way to convert TT rules into a Simulation/Shooter game . . . try converting ALL of the rules first, and then see how it plays out. As referenced many times throughout this thread, the aspects of time were all but completely ignored in the transition from TT to video game. That drastically hinders attempts at balancing.

If you remove time as a factor in balancing other games, you have the same kinds of problems. If you take your average shooter and make EVERYTHING cycle rounds and reload at the same speeds (thereby removing the factor of time, like MW:O did by assigning arbitrary recycle values to weapons, instead of focusing on the 10 second/round system) then why take anything other than a sniper rifle or heavy machine gun?

If everything fired extremely fast, the heavy machine gun whill now spew massive magazines of firepower down range with longer range, higher round capacity, and equal reload speeds to a SMG, which has less range and firepower.

However, in the opposite direction, if everything fired at the same slow ROF, then you would only take sniper rifles because one shot from it will kill something, but you'd have to wait forever to kill something with a SMG, Pistol, or HMG.

You can't just forget to add an aspect of balance to a game. When you do that, everything becomes broken and it makes rebalancing the game as you go that much harder. PGI has tried upping armor values, changing heat values, various damage changes, and are now implementing heat scaling and more aggressive weapons tuning. After a while the numbers just start to explode and maybe it's time to try a different approach.

Dark Jaguar actually offers that approach in a well thought out and displayed fashion. I look forward to the opportunity to give it a try and see how it works. I think all the negativity from some people in this thread will go away after being shocked at how this system would effectively balance the game.

[RickySpanish]

DarkJaguar, on 12 July 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Why won't TT values work? You have offered no proof whatsoever, just an anecdotal thought that you, as a dev, wouldn't fix balance because it takes too much time, and "meh".

You don't have to dig deep:

* A mouse and keyboard allow for incredibly accurate dispersal of damage to specific locations on Mechs.
* Each Mech is controlled by an individual pilot
* The game is an FPS
* The game is not turn based
* New content is continuously being added

Each of these aspects require the game to be balanced in a different manner to TT, meaning that traditional TT values and balancing simply don't apply. PGI has a heck of a job keeping the feel and balance of the game as close to "true TT" as possible, but unfortunately it can never be like TT, because it is not TT.

[3rdworld]

Doesn't TT have a heat capacity of 30?

[DarkJaguar]

RickySpanish, on 12 July 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

You don't have to dig deep:

* A mouse and keyboard allow for incredibly accurate dispersal of damage to specific locations on Mechs.
* Each Mech is controlled by an individual pilot
* The game is an FPS
* The game is not turn based
* New content is continuously being added

Each of these aspects require the game to be balanced in a different manner to TT, meaning that traditional TT values and balancing simply don't apply. PGI has a heck of a job keeping the feel and balance of the game as close to "true TT" as possible, but unfortunately it can never be like TT, because it is not TT.

You didn't read the OP did you?

1) I addressed convergence (your first point) by applying a slight cone of fire. The cone of fire isn't enough to cause you to miss within optimal range, but it forces damage to be spread out.

2) And?

3) So?

4) FPSes generally are not.

5) What bearing does this have on implementing a system that draws from previously balanced rules? Especially when the new content being added exists in the other system in a balanced state?

Your argument still offers no proof, it's simply "10 second turns can't be converted to 10 second of live play!" which is untrue.

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Doesn't TT have a heat capacity of 30?

No, you have a (technically) infinite heat scale in TT, but heat capacity is your heat sinks. What I mean by capacity is the amount of heat you can generate before you begin suffering penalties.

In TT, a PPC generates 10 heat. All mechs have 10 heat sinks, so they have 10 heat capacity. A stationary mech usually generates no heat, so firing that PPC would not put you onto the heat scale, you would still be within your heat cap. If you were walking (2/3 your max speed) you would generate heat at a rate of .1 per second, so walking and firing that PPC on the same 10 heat sink mech would now generate heat in excess of the capacity, so you would begin to suffer penalties as per the scale.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 12 July 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[3rdworld]

DarkJaguar, on 12 July 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

No, you have a (technically) infinite heat scale in TT, but heat capacity is your heat sinks. What I mean by capacity is the amount of heat you can generate before you begin suffering penalties.

and isn't that on a scale of 30?

[DarkJaguar]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

and isn't that on a scale of 30?

That's the level 1 rules scale, more advanced rules increase that scale to 60, however there's nothing to stop someone from taking that to infinity by continuing the pattern of numbers.

P.S. I edited my first response to you to try and explain it a bit better.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 12 July 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[stjobe]

jeffsw6, on 12 July 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Why wouldn't it be able to aim all its damage onto one pixel?

Are you admitting that TT values can't work with aiming?

I'm flabbergasted at the stupidity of this. So much so, that I feel compelled to quote the great Charles Babbage:

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (1864), ch. 5 "Difference Engine No. 1"

Edited by stjobe, 12 July 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[AztecD]

PGI, Get OP on the payroll please

Edited by AztecD, 12 July 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

stjobe, on 12 July 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

I'm flabbergasted at the stupidity of this. So much so, that I feel compelled to quote the great Charles Babbage:

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (1864), ch. 5 "Difference Engine No. 1"

Nice quote. That sums up my thoughts on the subject quite nicely.

AztecD, on 12 July 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

PGI, Get OP on the payroll please

Maybe someday, that or you'll see another mechwarrior game down the road with me on the team.

[jeffsw6]

Orzorn, on 12 July 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

They were literally built with the idea in mind that you CAN'T aim them at once location.

Yes, but MW:O isn't built with that idea. If you want it to work that way, without pinpoint-aiming, you had better start convincing people.

What I'm ******* sick of reading is "TT values will fix it!" without those same posts stating clearly that you have to dramatically alter the aiming or convergence mechanisms in the game.

Want to argue for TT values? Fine! Just stop telling people that, by itself, can work. It could not.

RickySpanish, on 12 July 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

Balancing a video game is a ridiculously difficult job

Balancing this particular game is not difficult. Why? Once again, it lacks all the following complexities, which are present in other MMO PvP games that have good balance:

• healing
  
• buffs and debuffs
  
• AoE
  
• crowd-control
  
• stuns
  
• PvE content
  
• tens of thousands of weapons and equipment
  
• player-characters that are focused on roles other than damage

It is not hard to balance MW:O. The reason they can't do it is the guy in charge of balance doesn't even understand why Machine Guns are no good, or why PPCs are good.

[jakucha]

jeffsw6, on 12 July 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yes, but MW:O isn't built with that idea. If you want it to work that way, without pinpoint-aiming, you had better start convincing people.

What I'm ******* sick of reading is "TT values will fix it!" without those same posts stating clearly that you have to dramatically alter the aiming or convergence mechanisms in the game.

Want to argue for TT values? Fine! Just stop telling people that, by itself, can work. It could not.


Balancing this particular game is not difficult. Why? Once again, it lacks all the following complexities, which are present in other MMO PvP games that have good balance:

• healing
  
• buffs and debuffs
  
• AoE
  
• crowd-control
  
• stuns
  
• PvE content
  
• tens of thousands of weapons and equipment
  
• player-characters that are focused on roles other than damage

It is not hard to balance MW:O. The reason they can't do it is the guy in charge of balance doesn't even understand why Machine Guns are no good, or why PPCs are good.

You're trivializing it though. Balancing a Mechwarrior game is not easy. None of them have been particularly balanced yet (for multiplayer), as there are many different weapons that work differently, many different systems and many different ways to interpret them.

Edited by jakucha, 12 July 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

No mechwarrior game has implemented a cone of fire system before either. MUCH of the balance issues we're having can be directly attributed to convergence. Not every issue though. If one, and only one, thing were to be implemented by PGI from this thread, I would hope it would be the convergence fix.

While I personally feel that the current asymmetrical weapons buffs, random heat capacity and radiation rates, and incorrect ammo translations that are in the game make it feel wrong, I can (and have) factually proven that convergence destroys balance.

[DarkJaguar]

I updated the PDF showing the weapons characteristics, it now displays heat side by side with damage on the individual weapon pages. Bookmarks have also been added to more easily navigate the PDF.

DOWNLOAD HERE

[Pht]

jeffsw6, on 12 July 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

What I'm ******* sick of reading is "TT values will fix it!" without those same posts stating clearly that you have to dramatically alter the aiming or convergence mechanisms in the game.

Want to argue for TT values? Fine! Just stop telling people that, by itself, can work. It could not.

I have been saying since before the closed beta that the TT weapons and armor values won't work if you don't use the combat mechanic they were made for. Quite often, actually.

... and the combat mechanic can be quite easily converted to realtime (without having to even use a 10 second recycle time), minus all the parts of it that represent human pilot/player skill.

[DarkJaguar]

Pht, on 12 July 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I have been saying since before the closed beta that the TT weapons and armor values won't work if you don't use the combat mechanic they were made for. Quite often, actually.

... and the combat mechanic can be quite easily converted to realtime (without having to even use a 10 second recycle time), minus all the parts of it that represent human pilot/player skill.

Exactly, the PDF I linked above illustrates that point quite well I think!

[DarkJaguar]

OP updated with the graphics discussing time as a further balance mechanic. Thank you everyone for your input on the subject, and don't forget to vote!