68 replies to this topic

[LoganMkv]

Random hit registration is supposed to happen cause mechs are supposed to dodge/block damage much better than we can, and shoot while moving slightly less accurate than we can.

[culverin]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 October 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

A short survey I did a while ago of my Wargaming friends and friends-of-friends (and my own reading of some of the sourcebooks) leads me to brand this statement , and ergo everything following, false. It's not a very well balanced game at all. That doesn't, for the record, make it a bad game. It doesn't, however, make it balanced.

I find the table-top balanced for the weapons released right now in MWO.
I don't think anybody would claim that Clan tech is balanced.

But balanced doesn't mean lights = assaults.
It was also balanced against a BV system. Again, with the weapons in MWO right now, balancing with weight limits would be ok.

Malsumis, on 11 October 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Imagine how hard it would be to down a Spider if we DIDN'T have weapon convergence and had to rely on a cone of fire. Without weapon convergence the outcome of games would be complete dice rolls. If you don't like getting shot in a specific location due to having an XL engine or weapon placement then I suggest you use terrain more and also twist your torso.

I don't want to stand in an open field firing back and forth waiting for that lucky dice roll to win. I want to pick my targets apart or find their weakness and exploit it.

If you want random hit location, go back to playing TT.

Weapon convergence or a cone of fire doesn't make it THAT hard to play.
You make it sound like it's "just" dice rolls and skill doesn't matter.

CoD and BF3 also have cone of fire based on movement.
The cone of fire shrinks is more accurate the slower you go.
It should continue shrinking down to perfect convergence, if you stand still and snipe.
After all, it's that you snipe? Whether in a tank or as a person, you stop, take careful aim so you're not shaking around, then put in a well placed shot.

I'm not against perfect weapon convergence.
I am against it when you move.

So if you want to land that pin-point shot out to 1000 meters, then the go for it.

[culverin]

Shadey99, on 11 October 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

I cannot think that much of your post (even if I agree with some of the sentiment) due to this error right here. TT/RPG BT is based on 10 second turns. Weapons fire, heat, and movement where all within these 10 second windows. Also the heatscale is only in effect for carried over heat, MWO would need a 'heat cahce' to imitate it within the current implementation.

Ooops.
My bad.

Yes, if PGI wants to slow down the game. Just use a global multiplier on weapon cycle rates. After that, tweak to balance.
Keep weapon damages the same.

"Heat cache" makes sense.
They can just "stretch" out the BT heat scale and play with the effect.
People alpha because there are no incremental penalties.



At least that way, everything is global.
And there is no reason to introduce and entirely new and arbitrary mechanic of ghost heat.

[AssaultPig]

It's pretty unlikely that the tabletop ruleset can just be imported into a real time environment. MWO is hardly the first game to run into this issue.

The tabletop can have things like infantry or ultra-powerful clan mechs because entire armies can be balanced against one another; it might be fun to have a tabletop game where you had a heavy infantry composition, but I doubt controlling one of those infantrymen would be very much fun in an online game. It's the same reason I expect clan tech to be implemented in an in-name-only kind of way.

In the same vein, would it be fun to only be able to fire weapons (effectively) every 10s or so? I kind of doubt it.

[Almond Brown]

Malsumis, on 11 October 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

Imagine how hard it would be to down a Spider if we DIDN'T have weapon convergence and had to rely on a cone of fire. Without weapon convergence the outcome of games would be complete dice rolls. If you don't like getting shot in a specific location due to having an XL engine or weapon placement then I suggest you use terrain more and also twist your torso.

I don't want to stand in an open field firing back and forth waiting for that lucky dice roll to win. I want to pick my targets apart or find their weakness and exploit it.

If you want random hit location, go back to playing TT.

Actually, folks could go play MWTactics. A computer adaptation of the Board Game (with RT Battle sequences) version of BT. If you really like the random hit stuff of BT, it does it quite well.

[Gaan Cathal]

culverin, on 11 October 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

But balanced doesn't mean lights = assaults.

It needs to in a game where each player is a pilot though. This doesn't mean that a Light should be able to face down an Assault (and they can't) but it does mean they need to equally contribute to a win (and yes, that does mean Lights being able to fight).

[Almond Brown]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 October 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

It needs to in a game where each player is a pilot though. This doesn't mean that a Light should be able to face down an Assault (and they can't) but it does mean they need to equally contribute to a win (and yes, that does mean Lights being able to fight).

Do you mean to say that you think that Lights in MWO can't currently fight and contribute?

[Mehlan]

Almond Brown, on 11 October 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Do you mean to say that you think that Lights in MWO can't currently fight and contribute?

There are people here (This forum) stating and/or implying that they should not be able to...

Edited by Mehlan, 11 October 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[culverin]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 October 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

It needs to in a game where each player is a pilot though. This doesn't mean that a Light should be able to face down an Assault (and they can't) but it does mean they need to equally contribute to a win (and yes, that does mean Lights being able to fight).

I pilot exclusively lights.
I don't want them nerfed.

[Xeno Phalcon]

I view canon much like I do reality when video games are concerned, it can serve as the foundation but should never be the definition. A good example of this is the Cicada, if we closely stuck to canon for that it wouldnt even be able to torso twist: can you imagine trying to play cicadas in MWO if all you could do was look the same direction your legs were pointed?

If anything I would say we should treat MWO as a alternate timeline outside of canon and draw from but not rely on it, that way we can still be in the 3050 era but not be anchored into whats gone on in that time frame to the letter.

[LoganMkv]

AssaultPig, on 11 October 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

The tabletop can have things like infantry or ultra-powerful clan mechs because entire armies can be balanced against one another; it might be fun to have a tabletop game where you had a heavy infantry composition, but I doubt controlling one of those infantrymen would be very much fun in an online game. It's the same reason I expect clan tech to be implemented in an in-name-only kind of way.

However EVE proves that power scaling is totally possible and fun in mmo if you slap a right price tag on everything. If losing poweramor costs you much cheaper than losing a mech, and losing a jumpship costs you thousands of real dollars, lots of people would enjoy playing infantry, cheap mechs, vehicles, whatever.

[AC]

The weapons seem to fire much faster than other MechWarrior games. Heck, the ERPPC had a longer recycle than the regular PPC in MW4, and that was one of its balancing factors. PGI seems to struggle finding ways to balance the weapons other than heat (or they go crazy and do things like gauss delay). There should be a longer difference between the weapon cool downs. That would go a long way to make them feel different too. We could also drop the heat on the ERPPC, eliminate gauss delay, and bump some damages to compensate.

[SuomiWarder]

If the original post boils down to "I would like a game environment that has combined arms elements", then yes. I agree that I would like to have tanks and VTOLs to blast away at as well. Convoy protect missions, sieze a base with active defenders other than players, etc.

But they had to start someplace, and the place they started has a business requirement that the majority of players feel they get a roughly even play field at the start - thus even numbers on teams, simple base capture mechanics, etc. Not to mention the ability for the game to function as the widest array of PCs that it can reasonably support.

[Tannhauser Gate]

After the original 2009 announcement / trailer there was a lot of discussion about how much BT lore and TT would be part of the game. A year later, it was made clear by the devs that MWO would exist in that world more than any other title previous. It was also announced that the new game would use the same timeline and that the game would not simply be based on previous mw titles but would go to the source.. that being TT, to base its game play upon. That said, they also said all of that would be subject to reinterpretation in order to make an action sim. They wouldnt change canon but they would choose which parts and how much of the lore to use in creating the game. Jump ahead 3 years and you can see that theyve reimagined the look of the mechs fro TT (much needed imo), they have approximated the weapons' stats to fit the combat environment, and they said they might adjust the game's story time line to better balance between lore and the game setting.

TLDR: Its still be a game approximating BT. Hopelly, it will do so with greater observance than any other game has.

[CeeKay Boques]

I find things harder to hit when I am moving and my opponent is moving. How is that thrown out? Sorry that so many of us are 0/0 pilots. My kids are 3/4 pilots and can't hit the broadside of a barn at a good clip. Seems accurate, just imagine that you are playing a BT mech game with all vet pilots.

Because you are.

[AlexEss]

LoganMkv, on 11 October 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

The premise is simple - it's clear now that MWO is never going to be well-integrated into BT setting.

Mechwarriors in BT are never limited to deathmatching equal amount of mechs on well-known small areas with any customization available.

*looks at BT box... Opens it.. looks at the maps...* Son.. I am not sure what you are smoking, but could you pass some over.. It sounds like good stuff.

In fact i have played a very good amount of games that was EXACTLY what you describe above... Sure we "said" it was for a factory or some other half arsed thing... But in the end it all was about putting as many imaginary holes as we could in to small metal models.

[SmithMPBT]

SuomiWarder, on 11 October 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

If the original post boils down to "I would like a game environment that has combined arms elements", then yes. I agree that I would like to have tanks and VTOLs to blast away at as well. Convoy protect missions, sieze a base with active defenders other than players, etc.

They need to hire some of those russian Warthunder guys and pay them in vodka till its done. It's a beautiful game with active NPCs/bases etc and they seem to have popped it out pretty quick. Russia FTW.

[Adridos]

SmithMPBT, on 11 October 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

They need to hire some of those russian Warthunder guys and pay them in vodka till its done. It's a beautiful game with active NPCs/bases etc and they seem to have popped it out pretty quick. Russia FTW.

They started working on the game in 2009... which means they have 4 years worth of development under their belt for that game, easily about as much as vanilla WoW.

Edited by Adridos, 11 October 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[LoganMkv]

AlexEss, on 11 October 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

*looks at BT box... Opens it.. looks at the maps...* Son.. I am not sure what you are smoking, but could you pass some over.. It sounds like good stuff.

In fact i have played a very good amount of games that was EXACTLY what you describe above... Sure we "said" it was for a factory or some other half arsed thing... But in the end it all was about putting as many imaginary holes as we could in to small metal models.

Do you understand that comparing a tabletop game with novels and computer games is not a good idea?

[Volthorne]

LoganMkv, on 11 October 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

However EVE proves that power scaling is totally possible and fun in mmo if you slap a right price tag on everything. If losing poweramor costs you much cheaper than losing a mech, and losing a jumpship costs you thousands of real dollars, lots of people would enjoy playing infantry, cheap mechs, vehicles, whatever.

And exactly how big is the playerbase for EVE? Probably roughly the same size as MWO's right now (maybe a bit smaller? I only see 886 playing EVE right now via Steam), and EVE has been out for years (like what, seven? eight?). The only reason that CCP can afford to keep the servers online is the players they do have are forced to pay through the nose for everything (and the people who can "play for free" by farming up enough soft-currency each month - the chunks of time they purchase have to be originally purchased from CCP by SOMEONE, right?).

Not to mention that this "better things cost money and can be permanently destroyed" is a garbage idea. Then only a handful of players would wreck face, get Clan Tech and then wreck even more face, forcing everyone else to use {Scrap}-tech.

This thread gets a 0/10. Terrible idea, terrible execution. Oh, and your arguments suck (for good measure).