464 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

Dart Nimrod, on 19 July 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

... and wouldn't pretend, that I understand what are these lobbies, you talking about. So let me just ask you: how all this can help, at least theoretically, to set things right, here in this mess? Because if every next patch gonna cut down most popular and realy working builds, one way or another, then this game will turn into a cheap parody on itself before release, I think.

Lobbies are simply places where two teams can meet an play out a match. It would allow the community to grow stronger, allow for some house rules, map selection, and custom/off board campaigns and tournaments to happen.

Examples within the current two-game mode style:
House rules might be: no cap wins in assault. Stock only and/or mechs with only a few modifications allowed. Weight restrictions. (set a tonnage limit on all mechs, or say have only 1 assault, 1 heavy, 1 medium and the rest lights)

Tournaments can be set up and played between several different units like Run Hot or Die.

Players could set up practices against themselves or against other units in their faction/alliance and test out builds, weapons/systems capabilities.

Trials of position and grievances could be played out. One on one duels could be arranged.

The battles, if part of a player/unit run campaign, could be recorded and used to determine the results of a player-run planetary or multi-planetary conquest league (using our own maps, and basically moving the dots and/or borders on the maps to represent progress and withdrawal.

It would allow the community to come together, and grow stronger.

PGI has been actively doing everything they can to prevent the above, trying successfully to railroad all of us to play their game exactly how THEY want us to play their game. They have faith that their community warfare will heal all of the grief that we've felt over their lack of cooperation, and that it is going to be so smashingly fantastic that we would not want to play the game any differently. Either that, or they just don't want people to form units at all, make friends, form bonds. It's all about controlling the players and funneling us into the type of players they want us to be rather than who we already are. I don't understand the reasoning behind it, as one of the key pillars of mechwarrior is community.

_______________________

Regarding your fears about favorite mech builds and stuff: all of that is trivial. If you nerf one build, another 'perfect' build will take its place. We will adapt to the game if we enjoy it. That's why I tell my guys not to scrap mechs if they don't have to: because you don't know how the next patch will change the game and make what was once useless useful. In MW4, high-alpha strike (one shot, one kill) builds dominated, and if you study the history of battletech, other than an AC20 coring a Flea once in awhile, battlemechs have to slug it out with each other for awhile to knock each other down. Also, think of how lame the game would be if you never had a chance to shoot because you were alpha striked before you got a chance to even see an enemy. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine. In lore and on the tabletop, all the hit locations on a mech, if the mech was hit at all, were random. So, you couldn't shoot 4 PPC's and expect them all to hit the same place on a mech. In a simulator, like this game, you can AIM better than you can roll the dice in tabletop. That's why all armor values have been doubled in this incarnation of the game. Human skill trumps luck of the dice, and to make it as much like the tabletop and the lore (novels) as possible, they have to do a lot of tweaking and balancing to make it FEEL like that vision. PGI is doing a good job of that. I would prefer a game mode option or LOBBIES to allow for a more traditional stock league, but whatever. Like pi$$ing into a hurricane, right?

Edited by Peiper, 19 July 2013 - 12:36 PM.

[101011]

Dart Nimrod, on 19 July 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I agree, mostly. But since you can't fire from more than two PPCs of all kinds or LRM15s, the only choise you have is AC-Laser-SRM/SSRM hodgepodge, that provides only few worthy builds. As it was before, when PPC and LRM boats "reigned" on the battlefield.

In tabletop, that is what gameplay was. Take the Atlas AS7-D: 4 medium lasers, AC20, SRM6, LRM20. Not a boat, not massive long range damage, but a balance.

[Dart Nimrod]

Peiper, on 19 July 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Lobbies are simply places where two teams can meet an play out a match. It would allow the community to grow stronger, allow for some house rules, map selection, and custom/off board campaigns and tournaments to happen...

That all sounds good to me. This premade tournaments, lobbies or whatever it's called, is a really good thing, I think. But forgive my indocility, I still don't get how all this can force PGIs to do things the community's way. Because your description of their priorities and intentions reminds me only one thing - the 3rd Reich. Do they really think that players want to be told how to play? I don't think so. Their only goal is to make more "money for nothing", or to satisfy the certain part (most complaining at the moment) of the community, or both.

[Splice]

Second night playing... Still think the new nerfs suck. In fact I'm starting to reconsider my potential purchase on project Phoenix. Cheers,

Edited by Splice, 19 July 2013 - 09:01 PM.

[Grimmnyr]

Tons of server lag since the last patch, my FPS shows solid 60 and lag is around 100ms, which is decent for me, so what is the problem?

Edited by Ed Steele, 20 July 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[Dart Nimrod]

101011, on 19 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

In tabletop, that is what gameplay was. Take the Atlas AS7-D: 4 medium lasers, AC20, SRM6, LRM20. Not a boat, not massive long range damage, but a balance.

Don't wanna disillusion you, pal, but that build, you mentioned, is a real balance... between not good and complete suck.

[Flying Judgement]

the awesome need some love ... the 9m is quiet useless even more than it was... its a 3 ppc boat. it need different heat management its made to shoot 3 ppc how on earth can i shoot 3 ppc in a cicada ???? With the same heat effects? . . .
shall i take out one ppc???? like my 2 ppc spider? LOL LOOOLLLLLLLL it lives the same long on a battlefield do to its size
can u imagine the spider with two of the awesome arm mounted on the spider right arm................................................
haveing the same heat dissipation .....


stalkers didnt made for 6 ppc's... nor a spider for 2 or a cicada

how about the laser hunch ? its made to shot 6 lasers as a single cannon...
why can i shoot 6 lasers in the same way in a 2A cicada

different mechs need different unique abilities or make large and normal energy hard points.

Edited by Flying Judgement, 19 July 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[Wales Grey]

101011, on 19 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

In tabletop, that is what gameplay was. Take the Atlas AS7-D: 4 medium lasers, AC20, SRM6, LRM20. Not a boat, not massive long range damage, but a balance.

That's nice, but this isn't Battletech. Bracket builds and generalists are strictly worse in a game where a player can aim and reliably hit a specific section of a target. So-called "balanced" builds cannot compete with a dedicated specialist in its area of expertise. If this game was a solo game where a player could reasonably expect to face a variety of tasks to overcome, a generalist build might be okay. Maybe. Assuming that there was more to do than "kill the other guy", and an opponent of roughly equal skill wasn't specialized, and a theoretical specialized unit could not effectively leverage its specialization in the game's mechanics.

Specialization wins in MWO for similar reasons why specialization dominates in other team games: you have teammates. A player's team can be built around specialized actors, or devoted to a single specialization. Whatever disadvantage one player may have can easily be covered by a teammate, or the entire team can specialize in the same thing to maximize their abilities in that respect.

Even in Battletech, specialists beat out generalists. (see: Devastator vs. Atlas, Hellstar vs. Everything, Wraith vs. Centurion, Wolfhound vs. most lights, etc.)

edit: forgot to attach metadata

#battletech101 #specialization #optimaldesign

Edited by Wales Grey, 20 July 2013 - 06:35 PM.

[101011]

Wales Grey, on 20 July 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

That's nice, but this isn't Battletech. Bracket builds and generalists are strictly worse in a game where a player can aim and reliably hit a specific section of a target. So-called "balanced" builds cannot compete with a dedicated specialist in its area of expertise. If this game was a solo game where a player could reasonably expect to face a variety of tasks to overcome, a generalist build might be okay. Maybe. Assuming that there was more to do than "kill the other guy", and an opponent of roughly equal skill wasn't specialized, and a theoretical specialized unit could not effectively leverage its specialization in the game's mechanics.

Specialization wins in MWO for similar reasons why specialization dominates in other team games: you have teammates. A player's team can be built around specialized actors, or devoted to a single specialization. Whatever disadvantage one player may have can easily be covered by a teammate, or the entire team can specialize in the same thing to maximize their abilities in that respect.

Even in Battletech, specialists beat out generalists. (see: Devastator vs. Atlas, Hellstar vs. Everything, Wraith vs. Catapult, Wolfhound vs. most lights, etc.)

Yeah, I know this isn't Battletech. But in a game developed by Battletech fans, are you really so surprised they try to make it closer to BT? Oh, and, uh, what does the Wraith have to do with a Catapult? It's a Clan medium... Take a Devastator into urban combat against an Atlas. I dare you. A competent Atlas would tear it to shreds.

[Wales Grey]

101011, on 20 July 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

Yeah, I know this isn't Battletech. But in a game developed by Battletech fans, are you really so surprised they try to make it closer to BT? Oh, and, uh, what does the Wraith have to do with a Catapult? It's a Clan medium... Take a Devastator into urban combat against an Atlas. I dare you. A competent Atlas would tear it to shreds.

Wraith is a space-furry mech? News to me! I used it to illustrate the effectiveness of a close-range specialist vs. a generalist (assuming C1) near it in weight feel free to substitute a Centurion/Enforcer/Generalist Medium. Devastator is still better in urban combat than the Atlas. I mean, yeah, at point blank, the Atlas is better, but urban environments tend to have long, straight lines. And a Devestator lance would wreck an Atlas lance, outside lucky roles on the side of the Atlas Lance.

And yes, I am amazed that any supposedly-competent development team would try to replicate a turn-based strategy game in FPS/tanksim format without taking extensive liberties. Especially because Battletech, from a design perspective, is an utter mess. As one would expect from an 80's FASA product. Not saying it's not fun, or that the game is bad, but Battletech is a mess of rules that feel haphazardly slapped together. Again, 80's FASA product.

[GaussDragon]

101011, on 20 July 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

Yeah, I know this isn't Battletech. But in a game developed by Battletech fans, are you really so surprised they try to make it closer to BT? Oh, and, uh, what does the Wraith have to do with a Catapult? It's a Clan medium... Take a Devastator into urban combat against an Atlas. I dare you. A competent Atlas would tear it to shreds.

Conspicuously, the majority of BattleTech-based PC games have called themselves MechWarrior, not BattleTech: The game. One would think that if it took some liberties to distinguish its very brand name then it would do the same for the game itself.

If you want something just like the TT then there's Megamek or MW: Tactics.

[Chronojam]

Dawnstealer, on 19 July 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

I suppose, but they'll need to space out the macro a bit more, with that .5 time limit on the firing. They'll still use the macro, I have no doubt, but you won't be getting hit with a sequence of 20 AC2 shells in the span of a couple seconds.

AC/2 boating was not the problem with the game, which is a good thing, because this change will not impact AC/2 boating. You will still be hit by a sequence of 20 AC2 shells in the span of a couple seconds. This change will do nothing to impact that experience.

By the way have you guys heard the reports the PGI is hoping we'll just Get Over this stupid change?

[GaussDragon]

Chronojam, on 20 July 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

By the way have you guys heard the reports the PGI is hoping we'll just Get Over this stupid change?

Go on...

[Wales Grey]

GaussDragon, on 20 July 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

Go on...

[GaussDragon]

Wales Grey, on 20 July 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

*************...

[Wales Grey]

GaussDragon, on 20 July 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

*************...

To be fair to Mr. Craig, I'm pretty sure he's one of the code monkeys, and can't really do much about what the lead developer decides to crowbar into the game.

[101011]

Wales Grey, on 20 July 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Wraith is a space-furry mech? News to me! I used it to illustrate the effectiveness of a close-range specialist vs. a generalist (assuming C1) near it in weight feel free to substitute a Centurion/Enforcer/Generalist Medium. Devastator is still better in urban combat than the Atlas. I mean, yeah, at point blank, the Atlas is better, but urban environments tend to have long, straight lines. And a Devestator lance would wreck an Atlas lance, outside lucky roles on the side of the Atlas Lance.

And yes, I am amazed that any supposedly-competent development team would try to replicate a turn-based strategy game in FPS/tanksim format without taking extensive liberties. Especially because Battletech, from a design perspective, is an utter mess. As one would expect from an 80's FASA product. Not saying it's not fun, or that the game is bad, but Battletech is a mess of rules that feel haphazardly slapped together. Again, 80's FASA product.

My apologies, I only skimmed the Wraith article, and apparently totally missed out on the numerous IS things. I am not arguing that it should become Battletech, there are many reasons it should not, I am arguing that generalists are not always inferior to specialists. So, let's see: Wraith, introduced 3055(?), Catapult, introduced 2561. So, a 'mech built 500 years later is superior? Wow! Devastator, introduced 3036, Atlas, introduced 2755. (281 year difference) See the pattern? Let's go a bit forward in time.
Argus (60 tons, introduced 4 years after Wraith) Armed with RAC 5, 2 ERML, MG, LRM10. 5/8 movement.
Wraith (55 tons, introduced 4 years before Argus) Armed with LPL, 2 MPL. 7/11/7 movement.
These would be a more even match.
Imp (100 tons, introduced 14 years after Devastator) Armed with 2 ERPPC’s, LRM15, LPL, 2 MPL, 2 ML. 3/5 movement.
Devastator (100 tons, introduced 14 years before Devastator) Armed with 2 GR, 2 ERPPC’s, 4 ML. 3/5 movement.
Another even match. Overall, the Imp trades the 2 gauss rifles for LRM’s and a LPL, and upgrades half the ML’s to MPL’s.

[Dart Nimrod]

Wales Grey, on 21 July 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

To be fair to Mr. Craig, I'm pretty sure he's one of the code monkeys, and can't really do much about what the lead developer decides to crowbar into the game.

Very interesting... no really, if even those PGIs, that post answers and promises here, can't do anything to point game fixes in the right direction, then what the f*ck this chatter is all about?

[fil5000]

Wales Grey, on 20 July 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

"Noise".

Sure.

[GreatBeer]

Wales Grey, on 20 July 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

Just so we're clear: If we agree with your decisions its "feedback" and if we don't its "noise". Is that about right?