195 replies to this topic

[Lyoto Machida]

MadcatX, on 13 August 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

The second last thing that Chris Roberts left us with that was related to games (Starlancer being the last, back in 1999, he only consulted for Freelancer)

Wing Commander: The Movie.

Lets just say that after having seen the creator of a great gaming franchise go on to make a movie that he himself screws up to unprecedented levels... can't even get the name of the damn carrier right.... his name doesn't quite inspire confidence in me.

Also, MW:o is not the first, nor the last I imagine, community-funded F2P game that I might end up being disappointed about the end result.

Well, seeing as how Hollywood has screwed up numerous book/game to movie translation, I'm not sure how Chris Roberts is really to blame for that.

Also, what does that have to do with his success in creating a legendary game franchise (as it relates to gaming, not movies)???

PanchoTortilla, on 13 August 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Yeah and Michael Jordan sucked at golf, William Shatner sucks at directing movies, Steve Jobs didn't even know how to program. What's your point?

Because if someone tries to do something they aren't good at, they suck at what they've proven they are excellent at?

This was probably better for your analogy:

[Khobai]

Quote

Open field dashes get group fired under overlapping fields of fire on TT, if the players know their roles.

Absolutely. But assaults and heavies can tank the damage because random hit locations. And while the assaults and heavies are tanking the lights and mediums can flank. Everyone has a role. Unlike MWO.

[MadcatX]

PanchoTortilla, on 13 August 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Yeah and Michael Jordan sucked at golf, William Shatner sucks at directing movies, Steve Jobs didn't even know how to program. What's your point? Because if someone tries to do something they aren't good at, they suck at what they've proven they are excellent at?

There's suck... and then there's "I'm making a movie about my own IP yet change the personalities of all my characters, spell their names wrong, change the design of the tiger's claw, rename it to the tiger claw, introduce this magical "pilgram" thing..."

My point is if the guy in charge of a franchise can't even get the story, the basic plot elements, to his franchise, correct in another medium to the point that Wing Commander: The Movie is defined as being based loosely on the video games of the same name. I know what you mean however. Chris was great at making single-player space sims with a good story. Along your same reasoning, and not even counting my rant against him, this does not guarantee that Chris will be great at making a space sim MMO.

[MadcatX]

Lyoto Machida, on 13 August 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

Well, seeing as how Hollywood has screwed up numerous book/game to movie translation, I'm not sure how Chris Roberts is really to blame for that

Chris Roberts is the only person in the gaming industry to ever have pretty much complete control over the movie based off his game. In this rather unique case, it wasn't hollywood screwing up the translation.

[Dimento Graven]

Khobai, on 13 August 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Absolutely. But assaults and heavies can tank the damage because random hit locations. And while the assaults and heavies are tanking the lights and mediums can flank. Everyone has a role. Unlike MWO.

What everyone forgets is that it's not "one on one" it's 12v12, where more often than not you're 1vX when you're getting fired at.

Having some sort of 'de-convergence' factor won't do squat for your survival when you stumble out into open field, or turn the corner into X number of 'mechs and trigger the gauss/PPC bukake.

De-converged or not, you're not going to survive that.

'Thinking man's shooter' doesn't only mean, "How am I going to get that next shot..." and that's it, it's more "How am I going to get that next shot, and not get shot at..."

[Dimento Graven]

MadcatX, on 13 August 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Chris Roberts is the only person in the gaming industry to ever have pretty much complete control over the movie based off his game. In this rather unique case, it wasn't hollywood screwing up the translation.

I'm sorry I can't imagine anything, ANY THING, topping what John Travolta did to Battlefield Earth.

If Dianetics has a hell, John Travolta is going to its deepest darkest region, go dig up L. Ron Hubbard's coffin and hook it to a generator, because that f'er will NEVER stop spinning...

Taking the novel that was voted planet Earth's BEST science fiction novel of the entire 20th century and turning it into that, that, UTTER MONSTROSITY...

UG... I can't, I can't even talk about it anymore...

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 13 August 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

What everyone forgets is that it's not "one on one" it's 12v12, where more often than not you're 1vX when you're getting fired at.

Having some sort of 'de-convergence' factor won't do squat for your survival when you stumble out into open field, or turn the corner into X number of 'mechs and trigger the gauss/PPC bukake.

De-converged or not, you're not going to survive that.

'Thinking man's shooter' doesn't only mean, "How am I going to get that next shot..." and that's it, it's more "How am I going to get that next shot, and not get shot at..."

And You shouldn't. I you are being shot by more tan one enemy you should die, unless you are very lucky or very fast. When I urn a corner into 4+ enemy I hit Reverse, blaze away until I have cleared or shut down for the inevitable.

[MadcatX]

Dimento Graven, on 13 August 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I'm sorry I can't imagine anything, ANY THING, topping what John Travolta did to Battlefield Earth.

If Dianetics has a hell, John Travolta is going to its deepest darkest region, go dig up L. Ron Hubbard's coffin and hook it to a generator, because that f'er will NEVER stop spinning...

Taking the novel that was voted planet Earth's BEST science fiction novel of the entire 20th century and turning it into that, that, UTTER MONSTROSITY...

UG... I can't, I can't even talk about it anymore...

I was just referring to film adaptations of games.

But yes you are absolutely correct.

[Dimento Graven]

MadcatX, on 13 August 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

I was just referring to film adaptations of games.

But yes you are absolutely correct.

You're right of course, but my frame of mind is, given what happened in taking that book to film, I thank all gods above and below that the novel was never ported to a PC game...

[Khobai]

Quote

What everyone forgets is that it's not "one on one" it's 12v12, where more often than not you're 1vX when you're getting fired at.

TT generally isnt 1v1 either. Focus fire is relevant in TT as well.

The point is when players focus fire in TT, its completely random where they hit, but when they focus fire in MWO, they all aim for the center torso. The result is that an Atlas can die while 70% of its armor is still intact. That is so wrong I dont even think I have to explain why.

[Joseph Mallan]

Convergence yet again the obvious problem.

[Ens]

well it seems that hardpoint restrictions in terms of harpoint sizes is too much of a problem.

instead it´s easier to tune and twist every weapon to odd behaviors

[3rdworld]

FatBabyThompkins, on 13 August 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

35 points is not a problem when it is spread throughout the armor of a mech. It is a problem when all go to one location. The AC/20 is supposed to be the top damage dealing weapon (in one shot). It's trade off is heavy, large crit space, ammo and short range. The next comparable is the Gauss: 15 damage. Very heavy, long range, minimum range, weapon crit causes ammo explosion. Everything else is 10 damage or less. Even light mechs, when hit with several PPC and lasers over the span of a 10 second turn could still survive as it was unlikely each hit would register in the same spot more than once or twice. That is why 35 points is a problem. 60 points isn't a problem as long as it is distributed.

and a 35 point damage is considerably larger than the ac/20.

14 tons for the PPCs
18 tons for the Gauss

My stalker uses 8 extra DHS

so I am running 40 tons and 34 ehs, crits for a 35 damage alpha.

Looks like I am paying way more than the AC/20, and the 35 damage is 5 less than a TT ac/20 did to a single location. Moreover, the damage spreads, if the target is doing any lateral movement, from weapon speed differences.

Edited by 3rdworld, 13 August 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[FatBabyThompkins]

3rdworld, on 13 August 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

and a 35 point damage is considerably larger than the ac/20.

14 tons for the PPCs
18 tons for the Gauss

My stalker uses 8 extra DHS

so I am running 40 tons and 34 ehs, crits for a 35 damage alpha.

Looks like I am paying way more than the AC/20, and the 35 damage is 5 less than a TT ac/20 did to a single location. Moreover, the damage spreads, if the target is doing any lateral movement, from weapon speed differences.

I'm not sure you got the message here.

The AC/20 does 20 damage to one location. That's its job, to put a lot of damage into one location (after praying it hits). 2x PPC/Gauss does 35 damage to, most likely, 3 different locations upon the mech in TT. Yes, your total tonnage is more. It should be more. But it is not 35 damage to one location. The AC/20 ensured that no matter what you hit, you hit it hard. The PPC/Gauss allowed you to do more total damage, but most likely to different sections and from considerably longer range. In fact, the odds of even two of those three weapons hitting the CT, to do at minimum 20 damage, are 9%. The odds of all three hitting the CT are .7%. The odds of the AC/20 to do 20 damage to the CT are 19.4%.

[Dimento Graven]

Khobai, on 13 August 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

TT generally isnt 1v1 either. Focus fire is relevant in TT as well.

The point is when players focus fire in TT, its completely random where they hit, but when they focus fire in MWO, they all aim for the center torso. The result is that an Atlas can die while 70% of its armor is still intact. That is so wrong I dont even think I have to explain why.

Actually it's not that uncommon in TT either, the to-hit table had two potential instant death numbers, 2 (for a critical hit to the left, right or center torso depending on facing) and 12, for head shot.

In a situation where you have focused fire on TT, a 'mech getting critical'd or head shot'd in a single round was actually quite common, not just 'uncommon'.

So again, the real difference is you've taken a THIRD PERSON, TT perspective and put it in a FIRST PERSON, RT perspective.

It's very unreasonable that the player should not be able to aim, and aim all his weapons and fire them in an alpha strike, as often as the various factors allow.

The core of the problem is that there's no REAL risk for doing so as quickly as the weapon reset timer allows. That's where a Heat Affects Table would, and really should, come in.

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 August 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Convergence yet again the obvious problem.

I disagree a bit with that statement, convergence can be a symptom of the problem, but the REAL source of the problem is a lack of heat affects.

Fix the lack of heat affects, you've removed the need for forced chaining of weapons, you've removed the need for heat stacking penalties, you've removed the need for some sort of 'by default' de-convergence, you've even mitigated some of the extreme alpha issues... Heck it'd be possible to build TWO heat affects tables one for IS one for CLAN to work on balancing some of the extreme possibilities with CLAN gear...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 13 August 2013 - 07:52 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

FatBabyThompkins, on 13 August 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

I'm not sure you got the message here.

The AC/20 does 20 damage to one location. That's its job, to put a lot of damage into one location (after praying it hits). 2x PPC/Gauss does 35 damage to, most likely, 3 different locations upon the mech in TT. Yes, your total tonnage is more. It should be more. But it is not 35 damage to one location. The AC/20 ensured that no matter what you hit, you hit it hard. The PPC/Gauss allowed you to do more total damage, but most likely to different sections and from considerably longer range. In fact, the odds of even two of those three weapons hitting the CT, to do at minimum 20 damage, are 9%. The odds of all three hitting the CT are .7%. The odds of the AC/20 to do 20 damage to the CT are 19.4%.

I don't think you accounted for potential CRIT rolls in your calcs, where anyone of those shots could result in a 2 or 12 location roll, resulting in a potential crit hit, or definite head shot... It's actually MORE DIFFICULT in MWO to get a headshot than in TT, and for good reason, but I think you see my point...

[3rdworld]

FatBabyThompkins, on 13 August 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

I'm not sure you got the message here.

The AC/20 does 20 damage to one location. That's its job, to put a lot of damage into one location (after praying it hits). 2x PPC/Gauss does 35 damage to, most likely, 3 different locations upon the mech in TT. Yes, your total tonnage is more. It should be more. But it is not 35 damage to one location. The AC/20 ensured that no matter what you hit, you hit it hard. The PPC/Gauss allowed you to do more total damage, but most likely to different sections and from considerably longer range. In fact, the odds of even two of those three weapons hitting the CT, to do at minimum 20 damage, are 9%. The odds of all three hitting the CT are .7%. The odds of the AC/20 to do 20 damage to the CT are 19.4%.

The AC/20 also had a 2.78% chance to insta kill any and every mech.

If your are going to use TT, increase the AC/20 to 40 damage. Then we can talk about the OPness or not of the 2PPC Gauss.

And what bearing do hit tables have? This is an FPS. Hit % are determined by the players ability to make the shot.

Edited by 3rdworld, 13 August 2013 - 08:28 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 13 August 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

The AC/20 also had a 2.78% chance to insta kill any and every mech.

If your are going to use TT, increase the AC/20 to 40 damage. Then we can talk about the OPness or not of the 2PPC Gauss.

And what bearing do hit tables have? This is an FPS. Hit % are determined by the players ability to make the shot.

The only reason to have the TT the way it was is you can't easily represent 'skill' in a third person turn based system, unlike a first person RTS.

Though, if you had any practice at throwing dice, I suppose you could add some amount of 'skill' to the game...

[Shakespeare]

This is the worst overreaction I've yet seen in the forums. He used ONE WORD to describe a theoretical fix, and the loudest among us have immediately constructed detailed theories about how awful it's going to be.

"desyncing" could mean anything. The most reasonable assumption is that they'd like to adjust projectile speed or recycle rate such that you can't just group the two weapon systems together and expect them to hit the same spot.

But no, instead we get wild shrieking about how incompetent they are. Why would a dev EVER read the forums with this drivel.