721 replies to this topic

[Pht]

I am, on 17 July 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

The novel's you gents write... that will never be read. Can you include more pictures please?

yor :-Q iz t% lng i don't undRstNd it

[Lord of All]

Unbound Inferno, on 17 July 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

If you mean PGi is included won't read it because of that - it is a sad bit of information to substantiate rationale as to why this game can never be balanced properly.

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

yor :-Q iz t% lng i don't undRstNd it

2true unfortunately.

[Pht]

Hey, save long posts, if you want to read them, and read 'em later.

All the better if you have a tablet computer or a large-screen e-ink reader to do it with on the go.

That's how I managed to finally read ALL of the court documents freely available for the fasa v. playmates & hg v. fasa court cases...

Which, btw, were OBSCENELY full of useful info.

Edited by Pht, 17 July 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[The14th]

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Hey, save long posts, if you want to read them, and read 'em later.

All the better if you have a tablet computer or a large-screen e-ink reader to do it with on the go.

That's how I managed to finally read ALL of the court documents freely available for the fasa v. playmates & hg v. fasa court cases...

Which, btw, were OBSCENELY full of useful info.

Crap info, none of it changes the fact that you are advocating for a system where the pilot simply moves around and clicks on a target. And don't bring up your "decisions" like arm bracing, as most of them would have to be programmed from scratch and therefore are unreasonable.

[Lord of All]

W0w I might have to enable sigs just to read this. NAH

[jeffsw6]

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

You were saying ... ?

I was saying it is not useful for you to advocate a system based on TT values without stating, in the same post, that you believe the way aiming works should be dramatically altered. You confuse players who aren't savvy enough to understand that TT values won't "just work" due to the pin-point problem. That is harmful to the discussion.

If you believe the aiming mechanics should be changed, then say so in these same posts where you advocate for a more pure TT system -- don't just say you want TT values.


You've labeled my argument a strawman, but the truth is, you continue writing posts without any mention of changing aiming to CoF or dice-roll. As long as you do so, I will continue to shout you down.

Just be honest about your suggestion so readers can understand your idea and decide if they like it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

So, you don't want a game that simulates mech combat in a game about mech combat?

Yes, I don't want that. If it means that most of the effectiveness of my attack is determined by a randomization algorithm rather than simply on where I point at with my mouse, it feels off to me. You don't need to put me in the cockpit then, give me a top down view and multiple units to steer.

The table top rules are what they are. They stretch my disbelief suspenders a lot already, but if you actually seat me inside a cockpit and tell me "you can choose where the targeting computer shoots at, but that's it" it doesn't work for me. The amount of indirection is too high.

I am willing to throw out or adapt everything from the table top game that allows mouse aiming - and even convergence, to an extent - to work in a balanced and meaningful manner in a real time game.

But in the end it might be irrelevant. PGI isn't going to adopt your solution, they aren't going to adopt mine, and the solutions they have come up with on their own so far are... mixed.

[Deathlike]

Instead of an FPS-sim like game, someone is advocating a MUD or turn based strategy game based on TT values.

Clearly, we have no need for CryEngine 3 for this.

There is something to the translation of a mech to what you see on the screen... the hitboxes and shape of a mech is vital to how it plays in the game (and PGI has to rework many of those models for balance purposes)... the simple fact is you cannot properly translate "randomness" to stuff like the Hunchback's hunch that has a significant balance based meaning to gameplay. Otherwise, we could just put "random 50 ton mech" and call it a day. Translating TT hit values on a map like Tourmaline is foolish enough... where the "hitboxes" of the crystalline structures have to be accounted for.. so something like the Atlas's arms in MWO and the shape of the structures cannot be just be plugged in to a random number generator, ignoring the fact you cannot shoot over structures because the arms are too low... unless we assume "the arms are always high enough to shoot its target"... which defeats the purpose of designing a physical mech representation or just "physics".

Anyways, just stop with any TT hit representation reference... because it would never work with MWO.

Edited by Deathlike, 18 July 2013 - 08:00 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

This is the game you are looking for.

[Unbound Inferno]

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Instead of an FPS-sim like game, someone is advocating a MUD or turn based strategy game based on TT values.

Clearly, we have no need for CryEngine 3 for this.

There is something to the translation of a mech to what you see on the screen... the hitboxes and shape of a mech is vital to how it plays in the game (and PGI has to rework many of those models for balance purposes)... the simple fact is you cannot properly translate "randomness" to stuff like the Hunchback's hunch that has a significant balance based meaning to gameplay. Otherwise, we could just put "random 50 ton mech" and call it a day. Translating TT hit values on a map like Tourmaline is foolish enough... where the "hitboxes" of the crystalline structures have to be accounted for.. so something like the Atlas's arms in MWO and the shape of the structures cannot be just be plugged in to a random number generator, ignoring the fact you cannot shoot over structures because the arms are too low... unless we assume "the arms are always high enough to shoot its target"... which defeats the purpose of designing a physical mech representation or just "physics".

Anyways, just stop with any TT hit representation reference... because it would never work with MWO.

Really? have you actually read the post? Or half the ideas of translating it properly?

We'd have lower heat cap, less shots and certain buidls can't work. Weapons and loadouts are limited or you'd overheat - the mech limitations would be relative to what can fit and the overal penalties will be enough to discourage or prevent repeated problems.

You really need to try taking the time to see HOW we want TT in MWO before you clain TT can't be here.

[Deathlike]

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Really? have you actually read the post? Or half the ideas of translating it properly?

We'd have lower heat cap, less shots and certain buidls can't work. Weapons and loadouts are limited or you'd overheat - the mech limitations would be relative to what can fit and the overal penalties will be enough to discourage or prevent repeated problems.

You really need to try taking the time to see HOW we want TT in MWO before you clain TT can't be here.

Insert the word random, and it already disinterests me.

From a link on Pht's sig said:

Things to know: plus modifiers ( + ) indicate things or conditions that make targets harder to hit. Negative modifiers ( - ) make it easier to hit targets. All to-hit modifiers are cumulative, and the total to-hit modifier is the number that must be equaled or surpassed when rolling two six-sided dice (2d6). Small Roller: http://www.fnordista...mallroller.html is an excellent program for calculating the effect that these modifiers have. As a rule of thumb, trying to hit anything that requires you to roll more than a six on 2d6 is a bad idea; just about half of your shots will miss on a 7. Just a little bit under 75% of your shots will hit "on a 6." The 'Mech actually indicates the to-hit number directly on the hud - it does it as color coding on the reticule; usually red for "poor targeting" (high to-hit modifier) to gold for "best targeting" (low to-hit modifier); along with audible cues.

At bold, stopped reading there.

[Voivode]

I agree with you on a lot of things but I have to say, the argument to stick to tabletop for everything is pretty flawed. There are two major reasons for this, both having to do with the difference between a TT game and a video game.

1) NO DICE: We aren't rolling dice to determine hits and hit locations. We are aiming in a video game. That alone changes a huge amount about how games play out. You can't rely on values from a game that had a system of random chance to balance a system that is not based on random chance.

2) 10 SECOND ROUNDS. Honestly, who's really going to play a video game where you have to wait ten seconds to fire any weapons again? Obviously, they have to change this because while it makes sense as a notional item in a TT game, it doesn't make sense when you actually have to sit there and wait. Once you change that, a lot of the balancing of the other TT rules have to be changed as well.

I think convergence has the potential to be a better balancing factor than the heat penalties, but for a studio that seems overworked already, the heat penalties are probably just way simpler to implement.

[Unbound Inferno]

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Insert the word random, and it already disinterests me.

Well i dare you to read this then;
http://mwomercs.com/...-balanced-feel/

The only "random" that exists is the borrowed JJ shake for a heat penalty. Of which its entirely possible it might not afect a build you run - if its a good build.

Voivode, on 18 July 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I agree with you on a lot of things but I have to say, the argument to stick to tabletop for everything is pretty flawed. There are two major reasons for this, both having to do with the difference between a TT game and a video game.

1) NO DICE: We aren't rolling dice to determine hits and hit locations. We are aiming in a video game. That alone changes a huge amount about how games play out. You can't rely on values from a game that had a system of random chance to balance a system that is not based on random chance.

2) 10 SECOND ROUNDS. Honestly, who's really going to play a video game where you have to wait ten seconds to fire any weapons again? Obviously, they have to change this because while it makes sense as a notional item in a TT game, it doesn't make sense when you actually have to sit there and wait. Once you change that, a lot of the balancing of the other TT rules have to be changed as well.

I think convergence has the potential to be a better balancing factor than the heat penalties, but for a studio that seems overworked already, the heat penalties are probably just way simpler to implement.

10 seconds for LRMs PPC, Gauss make sense.

Other lasers could be faster, but less damage - but balanced. That is the idea.

[Deathlike]

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Well i dare you to read this then;
http://mwomercs.com/...-balanced-feel/

I read this and then stopped:

From Linked Thread said:

Set a Turn for 10 seconds. Sounds reasonable then expect its a few (3-5) turns to kill a mech is what I want. Could be faster or slower depending on aim and other effects around that point.

10 seconds for every relevant action?

I hated MW4, but as much as I hated it, the ERPPC had a recycle time of 8 seconds. 10 seconds of "inaction" would effectively promoted the same type of "slow" gameplay that MW4 had. IIRC, even the ER Large recycled @ 5 seconds... 10 seconds to "have a turn" has to be the most broken mechanic that completely favors a sniper meta... which is more or less what MW4 was.. but in MW4's defense, the other weapons had relatively balanced cooldowns and options (mainly less than 5 seconds) to offset high alpha damage weapons like the ERPPC that had usually pretty high cooldowns.

In any case.. waiting for "a turn" with any brawler weapon under the proposed system is a futile effort.

[Unbound Inferno]

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I read this and then stopped:


10 seconds for every relevant action?

I hated MW4, but as much as I hated it, the ERPPC had a recycle time of 8 seconds. 10 seconds of "inaction" would effectively promoted the same type of "slow" gameplay that MW4 had. IIRC, even the ER Large recycled @ 5 seconds... 10 seconds to "have a turn" has to be the most broken mechanic that completely favors a sniper meta... which is more or less what MW4 was.. but in MW4's defense, the other weapons had relatively balanced cooldowns and options (mainly less than 5 seconds) to offset high alpha damage weapons like the ERPPC that had usually pretty high cooldowns.

In any case.. waiting for "a turn" with any brawler weapon under the proposed system is a futile effort.

Then i guess you won't and likely never will understand how recharge and heat dissipation could work over time.

[Deathlike]

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Then i guess you won't and likely never will understand how recharge and heat dissipation could work over time.

Nope. I read "TT" in translation is already know this is not a good idea.

[jeffsw6]

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

10 seconds for LRMs PPC, Gauss make sense.

Other lasers could be faster, but less damage - but balanced. That is the idea.

What you're suggesting is to make three types of weapon -- LRM, PPC, and Gauss Rifle -- have an even higher alpha, relative to all other weapons, than they do today.

Let's discuss your idea by example. Imagine that PPC does 10 dmg with a 10 second cool-down time. Large Laser does 4 dmg with a 4 second cool-down. Now, anytime someone with PPCs encounters a mech with LLs, they will still have a huge crit chance advantage, an increased likelihood of a killing-blow, and they only need to expose themselves once per 10s to apply all their damage to the target. The LL mech, on the other hand, has to expose himself, aim, fire, and hit the target, every 4 seconds.

This is assuming that aiming at a particular section is no longer possible, and all fire that strikes an opponent is randomized onto that opponent's armor or internal sections.


TL;DR: Your idea just got even more stupid than it already was.

[Unbound Inferno]

jeffsw6, on 18 July 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

What you're suggesting is to make three types of weapon -- LRM, PPC, and Gauss Rifle -- have an even higher alpha, relative to all other weapons, than they do today.

Let's discuss your idea by example. Imagine that PPC does 10 dmg with a 10 second cool-down time. Large Laser does 4 dmg with a 4 second cool-down. Now, anytime someone with PPCs encounters a mech with LLs, they will still have a huge crit chance advantage, an increased likelihood of a killing-blow, and they only need to expose themselves once per 10s to apply all their damage to the target. The LL mech, on the other hand, has to expose himself, aim, fire, and hit the target, every 4 seconds.

This is assuming that aiming at a particular section is no longer possible, and all fire that strikes an opponent is randomized onto that opponent's armor or internal sections.


TL;DR: Your idea just got even more stupid than it already was.

No. They stay the same. The rest gets balanced.

You really need to read my idea thuroughly.

[Unbound Inferno]

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Nope. I read "TT" in translation is already know this is not a good idea.

Then you didn't understand it - that is what they started with for MW:O - and it got lost after a few numbers.

[FatBabyThompkins]

My understanding was that the TT numbers are represented as a 10 second abstracted time reference. You could keep the exact TT numbers if every weapon fired once in 10 seconds. Or fire them twice in 10 seconds if their damage is halved and heat halved. Other ways to obtain the same result: fire 3 times in 10 seconds for full TT damage, 1/3 TT heat on mechs with 3 times as much armor.

The tables at the beginning of the thread are designed to show the amount of damage a mech can do (DPS and HPS) in 10 seconds and how that has been translated into MWO, which runs on arbitrary time intervals. Personally, I like the current pace of combat, with the exception of large alpha strikes. Some weapons under perform while others over perform.

The case being made is take the damage capable in 10 seconds in TT and find a way to make it happen in MWO. Not fire once every 10 seconds, but the damage over 10 seconds equates to the same. Or increase the damage while increasing armor (which is essentially what MWO has done, but not in, what I would call, a logical manner). Most weapons fire 2 to 3 times faster than TT (some 20 times faster, hello AC/2), dealing the same damage per shot, on mechs with 2 times as much armor. Thus, the life expectancy of a mech is lower than in TT over the same time period. If that is bad, who knows, but it was not done homogeneously inviting unbalance and thus the crux of the argument.

And all of the above says nothing of convergence Yet another TT vs MWO discussion.