74 replies to this topic

[Core2029]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Sigh... You "young gamers" make me sad.

For these old eyes, "Easy to learn and difficult to master" = Super Mario Brothers...

You guys have no frame of reference nor the patience to appreciate "good gaming". Reality is what we old-farts consider deep and satisfying gaming would make your heads explode, that assuming you could muster the fortitude to read through the included manual.

Tutorial?... LOL! We had 100 page literature that not only instructed you on game-play but also steeped you in the subject matter or built the foundation for the story line...

Depth of gameplay meant the game mechanics were deeper than a few mouse clicks...

Satisfactory gaming experience and mastery of gameplay was more robust than memorization and min/maxing...

Single-player was the meat of the game and multiplayer was some tacked-on whim...

We used code-wheels to get into our games and did not require persistent online connections and didn't have to worry about DRM.

Sadly... 25 years ago MW:O in it's present state would have been considered a console port for it's simplicity and shallow gameplay...

So when I hear anyone complain about how "complicated" MW:O is or is becoming... I shudder and weep for our future.

Not to compare ages but I think you're missing his whole point. I've used code wheels to "register" games but I took something completely different from his post. Dimentia fellow old timer?

[Core2029]

DocBach, on 12 September 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

So, if anything is the same threat level now, does that mean balance is being achieved where a 'Mech carrying a specific weapon load during previous metas is no longer so powerful that it needs to be singled out to die first?

If absolute balance is your goal then personality, as referenced in the post, is out the window. Yes.

[Core2029]

Imperius, on 12 September 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

That said I give this thread a whine/10

And yours has officially received a jackass of 8/10 primarily because there was little eloquence in your derision. I'm tired of seeing stupid comments like this in the community.

[Core2029]

Devils Advocate, on 12 September 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

You realize that at the point where you're asking them to remove every actual mechanic they've implemented into the game you're asking for counter strike right? There are other games you can play if you'd rather be able to coast on a rail and click on enemies all day. This isn't the only game out there and I'm sure you can find one that suits your preference without rebuilding this one from the ground up and tearing out all of the work they've put into it.

The comparison to Counter Strike makes no sense at all. Piling an argument on top of that makes it worse.

As far as the balance direction the game has taken, I'm surprised anyone would disagree that it's way off course.

[Core2029]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Understood and agree to a point.

That said, and in fairness to the developers... If PGI made concerted effort to placate every community suggestion MW:O would still be "in development" the same time we actually do strap into implausible humanoid war machines.

I understand the sentiment but we all know this game will never be not "in development."

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

There is a lot of great suggestions this community has to offer but at the same time PGI has to move forward with their development of MW:O and hit some landmarks, even if some of their decisions ultimately are unpopular in the grand scheme of things.

I know a lot of that sounds like white-knight apologist tripe but I've walked in similar shoes as theirs and I can state emphatically that when given a choice of re-doing a large section of development to meet consumers suggestions or falling behind in hitting your expected landmarks + exceeding budget because of it... No matter how much you internally want to take the high-road and scrap / rebuild, sometimes your hand is forced, damn the consequences...

Basic understanding of project "milestones" doesn't negate the original post's intent. While you may be absolutely correct in that they do not care at all what he's saying, it doesn't invalidate his feelings on the topic. Feelings that I completely agree with and feel obliged to defend.

[Core2029]

DaZur, on 12 September 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Sigh... You "young gamers" make me sad.

For these old eyes, "Easy to learn and difficult to master" = Super Mario Brothers...

You guys have no frame of reference nor the patience to appreciate "good gaming". Reality is what we old-farts consider deep and satisfying gaming would make your heads explode, that assuming you could muster the fortitude to read through the included manual.

Tutorial?... LOL! We had 100 page literature that not only instructed you on game-play but also steeped you in the subject matter or built the foundation for the story line...

Depth of gameplay meant the game mechanics were deeper than a few mouse clicks...

Satisfactory gaming experience and mastery of gameplay was more robust than memorization and min/maxing...

Single-player was the meat of the game and multiplayer was some tacked-on whim...

We used code-wheels to get into our games and did not require persistent online connections and didn't have to worry about DRM.

Sadly... 25 years ago MW:O in it's present state would have been considered a console port for it's simplicity and shallow gameplay...

So when I hear anyone complain about how "complicated" MW:O is or is becoming... I shudder and weep for our future.

Oversimplified. Not all "young gamers" or "console gamers" as I call them, carry the stigma you are applying. There are some that would fall right into the category you did if growing up under the same circumstances. We were just lucky to be there when those circumstances occurred.

Consoles just brought an entirely new species into the gaming mix. One that is far more casual and easily distracted. One that often clashes with the "old timers."

[Tempered]

I kind of like the hardcore mechanics. Hell, I would like to see things like shutting down coolant pumps in leaking coolant loops, management of active and passive radar modes, and having to set missile volley ripple.

[Core2029]

Tempered, on 12 September 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

I kind of like the hardcore mechanics. Hell, I would like to see things like shutting down coolant pumps in leaking coolant loops, management of active and passive radar modes, and having to set missile volley ripple.

Sounds like great ideas! Let's not require winning 3 rounds of Sudoku in under 12 seconds to do any of these things tho.

Edited by Core2029, 12 September 2013 - 05:28 PM.

[Suprentus]

https://twitter.com/...246199259566080

Well how about that? They actually had the same idea concerning the UAC/5 as I did. I'm actually a little impressed.

Now if only they can apply this kind of mentality with the rest of the game...

[MustrumRidcully]

That looks like the sensible change. I am not sure from the comment if double shot can still be triggered by pressing a bit too early, or gets its own dedicated "double shot window" so you won't trigger it accidentally. Otherwise, macro users might still have an advantage (but not a big one - if you didn't want to double shoot anyway, you could have used an AC5, right?)

[DaZur]

Lostdragon, on 12 September 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Show me one with a mechanic like ghost heat. Playing sims back in the '90s is what originally got me interested in game mechanics and how game design works. I've never played a game that has a "balancing" mechanic like ghost heat. I've never run across anything as unituitive.

In early at work... I've got the time.

Early flight sims (EAW, Air-Warrior etc.) were all data-table driven flight models. As such, the aircraft did not "fly" as much as perform within a specific criteria. As such a lot of "data" was fudged to force aircraft, particularly within the departure envelopes, to exhibit historical tendencies.. i.e harsh stalls, wallowing at alt. or asymmetrical torque roll.

Newer sims began utilizing fluid-dynamics & NACA airfoils to actually simulate flight however a fair bit of fudgery was required again to invoke known departure characteristics as well as adapt necessary viscosity drag corrections.

​Any shooter that attempts to model ballistics is playing with numbers just like MW:O with their weapon balancing...

Racing simulations are notorious for playing with drag, draft and traction numbers to maintain known / expected vehicle tendencies.

Lastly, while some might argue the simile, virtually every simulation, be it flight, driving, naval or what not allows the A.I. to ignore specific aspects of the game mechanics to allow the A.I. to be competitive or slightly "better" than their human competitors.

Point being, it is neigh impossible for any game that is expected to exhibit "X,Y and Z" and perform within that envelope to not utilize / invoke some form of the MW:O "Ghost Heat" fudgery to steer the game mechanics to placate both player expectations and or to force certain balancing mechanics.

Edited by DaZur, 13 September 2013 - 05:42 AM.

[Lostdragon]

DaZur, on 13 September 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

In early at work... I've got the time.

Early flight sims (EAW, Air-Warrior etc.) were all data-table driven flight models. As such, the aircraft did not "fly" as much as perform within a specific criteria. As such a lot of "data" was fudged to force aircraft, particularly within the departure envelopes, to exhibit historical tendencies.. i.e harsh stalls, wallowing at alt. or asymmetrical torque roll.

Newer sims began utilizing fluid-dynamics & NACA airfoils to actually simulate flight however a fair bit of fudgery was required again to invoke known departure characteristics as well as adapt necessary viscosity drag corrections.

​Any shooter that attempts to model ballistics is playing with numbers just like MW:O with their weapon balancing...

Racing simulations are notorious for playing with drag, draft and traction numbers to maintain known / expected vehicle tendencies.

Lastly, while some might argue the simile, virtually every simulation, be it flight, driving, naval or what not allows the A.I. to ignore specific aspects of the game mechanics to allow the A.I. to be competitive or slightly "better" than their human competitors.

Point being, it is neigh impossible for any game that is expected to exhibit "X,Y and Z" and perform within that envelope to not utilize / invoke some form of the MW:O "Ghost Heat" fudgery to steer the game mechanics to placate both player expectations and or to force certain balancing mechanics.

The problem with that explanation is those sim mechanics are attempting to model what really happens. AI getting an advantage is a balancing mechanic, but it is comparing apples to oranges because there is no AI in MWO.

The reason I have such a problem with ghost heat is it is an opaque design that arbitrarily imposes new values on a system used by players without any sort of rhyme or reason. It goes against the "sim" aspect of the game in that it is producing heat from nowhere, which makes it unintuitive. It is particularly punishing for the more casual player who is not in the forums frantically refreshing on patch day to read about the latest changes.

The other major problem with ghost heat is that for the most part it can be ignored with little to no consequences. There are basically only three weapons that have harsh penalties: PPCs, ERPPCs, and AC20s. Firing the max alpha +1 of every other weapon type generates less than 5 extra heat in most cases. Firing max alpha +2 is a mixed bag, for some weapons like SRMs the extra heat is trivial but for some like LRMs it is like firing an additional weapon.

The big kicker is even with the harsh penalties on the PPC family ghost heat did not stop the PPC+GR meta. It took nerfs to the PPC including increased base heat and a major change to the GR's firing mechanic to do that.

So we now have a system that is completely undocumented in the game and affects different weapons in drastically different ways. It relies on producing additional heat to curb boating but for the most part it is easily ignored because subsequent nerfs had more impact on PPCs, LRM boats can easily manage the extra heat, and the extra heat generated on a lot of weapons is so trivial as to beg the question "What is the point?".

Instead of coming up with this crazy method of additional heat generation why not just either increase the base heat of the most harshly penalized weapons and/or reduce the heat cap (and probably increase heat dissipation)? Why didn't they attempt to change these values and test the results rather than coming up with this bizarre solution? Why immediately implement a complicated solution without trying something simple and intuitive first?

In an RTS if a unit being produced too quickly is an issue the dev does not add a system where if you queue up to build more than 3 of said unit the production time increases for each unit beyond 3, they increase the base production time. In an FPS if a gun is OP the dev does not incrementally decrease the damage of every bullet fired after the third until you stop firing for. 5s, they adjust the damage, range, or accuracy of the weapon. In an MMORPG if a spell is OP the devs don't increase the casting time if you cast the spell more than 2 times in 10 seconds, they adjust the cast time or damage or other effect of the spell.

TLDR: Basically there were a lot of better options than ghost heat.

[DaZur]

Lostdragon, on 13 September 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

TLDR: Basically there were a lot of better options than ghost heat.

I agree that there have been at least a dozen more elegant solutions offered up that could have been explained in less than two sentences. All being said... The ghost heat and the recent PPC nerf has largely rectified the inequities they were intended to mitigate.

Why this convoluted solution versus just increasing base heat? I agree that at face value it sounds like a no brainer... That said and I know this sounds like I'm being an apologist but we don't have knowledge of what's in the works and how it's interacts with with them... In short, while I have no way to qualify this theory, I suspect the change goes deeper than just weapon balance and may well have a ripple-effect that in short required(s) the convoluted solution versus a simplistic base-heat correction. I don't care how inept you are at something, you don't make things overly-complicated unless there is a reason behind it IMHO.

I still contend that players like you and me are too close to the source to make unbiased assessment of how confusing PGIs weapon balancing solutions are... I suspect we are too sensitive to it, have too much knowledge of the mechanics and in our minds cannot rationalize the results.

For new players and those not steeped in the empirical data we use as qualifiers... Because MW:O is a fantasy big-stompy robot shooter, most anything is explained away with "BT Universe Magic".

MW:O balancing is a a succulent ball-park frank with all the fixings... Don't need to know what it's made of so long as it tastes good. Right or wrong, this community is like the jerk friend that leans over as you take the first bite and informs you it's made from a myriad of scrap meats and fillers and you begin to question: "Did I just bite into a caper or a toe-nail"?

Edited by DaZur, 13 September 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Lostdragon]

DaZur, on 13 September 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

MW:O balancing is a a succulent ball-park frank with all the fixings... Don't need to know what it's made of so long as it tastes good. Right or wrong, this community is like the jerk friend that leans over as you take the first bite and informs you it's made from a myriad of scrap meats and fillers and you begin to question: "Did I just bite into a caper or a toe-nail"?

Why settle for a hot dog when you could have had filet mignon?

[DaZur]

Lostdragon, on 13 September 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Why settle for a hot dog when you could have had filet mignon?

That's not what the vendors are serving at PGI ballpark?

Edited by DaZur, 13 September 2013 - 09:27 AM.

[Jonathan Paine]

Suprentus:
1. Apart from the weird ghost heat penalty applying randomly to weapons, only the gauss had complicated mechanic added to it.

2. UAC5: Dislike your solution, apart from one thing. Yes, players should be in control of when the weapon double fires, and only then should the jamming penalty be applied. Keep the UAC5 different from AC5 in tonnage and crits, or the AC5 becomes POINTLESS and I DONT WANT LESS WEAPONS.

3. Ghost heat - fine, but your solution of random weird effects do not seem like a simpler solution. A simpler solution would be to stop alpha strikes from having perfect convergence, while letting chain fired weapons with at least 0.5 seconds between each shot retain accuracy.

4. Gauss rifle needs a charge time. It also needs a shorter recycling time to compensate, and should be able to retain its charged state much longer. Only in its charged state should the gauss rifle explode if critically hit.

5. ECM is still ridiculous.

6. Why ever use single heat sinks?

7. Most weapons that becomes supremely popular do so because they are op. Unfortunately, PGI seems to have no concept on how to tune weapons gradually. This has led to LRM armageddon (several times) as well as the rise and fall of the PPC. (Not to mention low heat SL/ML and unrestricted engines back in pre-history....).

TL;DR:

Suprentus suggests MWO changes that combine complicated coding with un-attractive changes to weapons, dumbing down the game. I disagree.

[Joseph Mallan]

Core2029, on 12 September 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

If absolute balance is your goal then personality, as referenced in the post, is out the window. Yes.

That kind of balance will force me out of MWO.

[Devils Advocate]

Core2029, on 12 September 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

The comparison to Counter Strike makes no sense at all. Piling an argument on top of that makes it worse.

As far as the balance direction the game has taken, I'm surprised anyone would disagree that it's way off course.

I'll reword what I was trying to say. It was pretty poorly worded anyway.

If anybody can equip anything they want and we don't make an effort to limit alphas or slow down Gauss rifles you end up with the game we had before, which is 90% twitch and 10% loadout. If 6 PPCs coming out of an Awesome isn't an AWP I'm not sure what is. Oh, but wait... you wanted some kind of (apparently not as complicated) system where your screen fuzzies up or you get weird heating issues when you fire a bunch of them at once to compensate, right? Another complicated system that wouldn't actually stop anyone from murdering you with one shot at 600 meters but would instead immerse the person firing in a world of wurring robot parts and energy crackles. We're still in counterstrike territory. I'll explain what I mean when I say that further down.

Gauss rifles have always been broken. Go find an archive of the forums from closed beta an take a gander. You must have been around long enough to realize they needed a rework. Now they serve a purpose and fill a role beyond simply being the best at everything in the entire game. A charge on the Gauss rifle isn't "complicated" either, it's just an attempt to make the weapon less non-specific in its application. It's still too good at brawling but at least it has a downside now.

I've used double Gauss and 6 PPC mechs for a year now and I always felt like I was playing Counter Strike. If I caught you off guard you were dead, if you caught me, and you had a similar loadout as me, I was dead. That shouldn't be the way mechwarrior works. Yeah, you should probably get murdered for being caught completely with your pants down, but two shots in 3 or 4 seconds shouldn't ever core an assault, and nobody should have to worry about having their core blown out in 3 shots from 700 meters while moving at speed between cover. That's the point of all these changes, and whether or not you agree with the changes they have changed the game as they intended to change the game. There's a little less losing your right torso with one volley and a little more dedicating yourself to sniping or brawling without just taking the biggest loadout.

Edited by Devils Advocate, 13 September 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 13 September 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

I agree that there have been at least a dozen more elegant solutions offered up that could have been explained in less than two sentences. All being said... The ghost heat and the recent PPC nerf has largely rectified the inequities they were intended to mitigate.

Why this convoluted solution versus just increasing base heat? I agree that at face value it sounds like a no brainer... That said and I know this sounds like I'm being an apologist but we don't have knowledge of what's in the works and how it's interacts with with them... In short, while I have no way to qualify this theory, I suspect the change goes deeper than just weapon balance and may well have a ripple-effect that in short required(s) the convoluted solution versus a simplistic base-heat correction. I don't care how inept you are at something, you don't make things overly-complicated unless there is a reason behind it IMHO.

I still contend that players like you and me are too close to the source to make unbiased assessment of how confusing PGIs weapon balancing solutions are... I suspect we are too sensitive to it, have too much knowledge of the mechanics and in our minds cannot rationalize the results.

For new players and those not steeped in the empirical data we use as qualifiers... Because MW:O is a fantasy big-stompy robot shooter, most anything is explained away with "BT Universe Magic".

MW:O balancing is a a succulent ball-park frank with all the fixings... Don't need to know what it's made of so long as it tastes good. Right or wrong, this community is like the jerk friend that leans over as you take the first bite and informs you it's made from a myriad of scrap meats and fillers and you begin to question: "Did I just bite into a caper or a toe-nail"?

If it crunches... it was a toenail. Now quit thinking so much and enjoy the flavor of a great dog!

[ShadowSpirit]

Yeah, it's like one evil turn begets another. Now in most matches it's an AC love fest.