228 replies to this topic

[Cybermech]

if you really want things to go back to the way it was.
with all mechs having a place.
Massive skill lock reduction is needed.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Actually what this thread has shown is that the MM needs changing so that good vets and new players never meet. but then we will get yells over how long it takes to get matches.

[PanzerMagier]

So you design every mechanic in game to encourage Alpha strike builds over DPS builds.
WELL DONE.
Too much heat capacity, not enough heat dissipation. Am I the only one who thinks heat neutral builds are a sin?
Yes? Sorry, I seem to be a bit on an island eh...

[Pht]

Steel Claws, on 19 October 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

I fail to see where aiming your shots to hit where you want them isn't in the lore.

The way you've stated it here really is an oversimplification and kind of misses the point.

First of all, in the lore, if a pilot is talented enough at what gunnery skill is in a battlemech, they can, with a single weapon, target and expect to hit a specific section/component, and as long as the shot isn't hard enough to fall outside of the capabilities of the 'mech, hit it...

...but only with a single weapon.

For multiple weapons, the 'mech has to calculate for each weapon, and attempt to align each weapon, independently, to align under the reticule. That's a whole other and much bigger can of worms than doing it with a single weapon; so yes, you usualy incur some de-convergence of weapons fire from under the reticule. This is borne out pretty much everywhere in the lore.

Quote

The lack of convergence in table top was put there to simulate pilot skill.

No. It wasn't.

To quote the man who's job it is to know:

Herb Beas, BT line developer said:

As to Hit Location Tables, they are designed to approximate the basic targeting system's goal of aiming for center mass (which is why they weight the bell curve to the torsos), while both attacker and target are in motion on a chaotic battlefield filled with ambient electronic noise.

http://bg.battletech...5b7o7#msg676405

The hit location tables are the deconvergence mechanic.

They're there to simulate the 'mechs abilities. Gunnery skill in a battlemech is not what most people presume it is.

Quote

If you read the books, good pilots always picked components out and destroyed what they were aiming at.

The only characters that did this were the author-fiat characters and specifically they did it to advance the author's intended storyline.

The stories (and I have read the majority of them multiple times) don't support the idea that 'mech pilots in general are capable of getting their 'mechs to hit a specific part of a given target.

That said, it is possible in the lore to significantly narrow your field of fire for the average pilot - usually through the use of advanced hardware or specific tactics that apply in some situations.

Otto Cannon, on 19 October 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

I also saw a quote (from Paul iirc) saying that the lack of convergence was due to hit detection being already bad enough without it, and unable to handle extra complication. That would seem to be supported by the fact that SRMs currently have the worst hit registration with their multiple strikes.

IMO this is only because they are stuck in the rut of "fps style" damage resolving.

It's entirely possible to sensibly simulate the 'mech's weapons handling capabilities without incurring increased complexity.

Literally all it would take would be a SINGLE raycast, simple addition, and a range choice from 2-12 and 1-6, all using data that the server probably already collects.

jakucha, on 19 October 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

It isn't that simple. All mechwarrior games have had big flaws in multiplayer modes one way or another

Mechwarrior games aren't the lore.

They're derived from it.

Edited by Pht, 20 October 2013 - 10:30 AM.

[Pht]

Noth, on 19 October 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

You mean TT? Lore and stories varied widely in how effective mechs and weapons are.

It's not easy to keep the authors inside of the box - that said, they have had to operate within proscribed boundaries.

It's now a known fact that the authors have had to comply their 'mechs performance to the TT combat rules and the "fluff text" that explained those rules - and that yes, the restrictions have been broken from time to time.

Quote

TT does not translate well at all to real time.

It does: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

The heat system is ripped almost directly from TT (Except we shut down the instant we reach our cap and yes TT has a variable cap before even reaching the heat penalties).

Pardon, but it's not anythign like a "direct rip." The heatsinks don't even work the same. The balancing factors that the heatscale uses as penalties require some things that aren't even present in MWO.

It could at very best be called a "loose/free re-translation."

Quote

There can be no meta that matches lore or the TT simply from the fact that TT is a turn based game and lore varies too much.

Simply not true.

For one, the lore doesn't vary as much as you're saying it does; and that TT is turn based is not the bogey-man roadblock it is falsely made out to be.

Even the issue of differing recycle times is easily overcome when you realize that heat is the controlling mechanic that touches on every weapon a 'mech mounts, even those that make no heat in and of themselves. Faster recycle, more heat. Slower, less.

Quote

As long as there are competitive teams seeking the best builds, there will always bee a dominant meta. In low tierd games you actually see something closer to the lore (mixed and varied builds, super specialized builds are not super common place like in the top tier).

I haven't said that there should be no metagame or that it's possible to have a game without one. I simply wish that the metagame matched the lore.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Pht, on 20 October 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The way you've stated it here really is an oversimplification and kind of misses the point.

First of all, in the lore, if a pilot is talented enough at what gunnery skill is in a battlemech, they can, with a single weapon, target and expect to hit a specific section/component, and as long as the shot isn't hard enough to fall outside of the capabilities of the 'mech, hit it...

...but only with a single weapon.

For multiple weapons, the 'mech has to calculate for each weapon, and attempt to align each weapon, independently, to align under the reticule. That's a whole other and much bigger can of worms than doing it with a single weapon; so yes, you usualy incur some de-convergence of weapons fire from under the reticule. This is borne out pretty much everywhere in the lore.



No. It wasn't.

To quote the man who's job it is to know:



http://bg.battletech...5b7o7#msg676405

The hit location tables are the deconvergence mechanic.

They're there to simulate the 'mechs abilities. Gunnery skill in a battlemech is not what most people presume it is.



The only characters that did this were the author-fiat characters and specifically they did it to advance the author's intended storyline.

The stories (and I have read the majority of them multiple times) don't support the idea that 'mech pilots in general are capable of getting their 'mechs to hit a specific part of a given target.

That said, it is possible in the lore to significantly narrow your field of fire for the average pilot - usually through the use of advanced hardware or specific tactics that apply in some situations.



IMO this is only because they are stuck in the rut of "fps style" damage resolving.

It's entirely possible to sensibly simulate the 'mech's weapons handling capabilities without incurring increased complexity.

Literally all it would take would be a SINGLE raycast, simple addition, and a range choice from 2-12 and 1-6, all using data that the server probably already collects.



Mechwarrior games aren't the lore.

They're derived from it.

Good post.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Pht, on 19 October 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Russ bullock has stated, by valid implication, in one of the No guts no galaxy podcasts that he does not think it is fun to have the weapons be deconverged.

Russ Bullock is the president of PGI.

Bryan ekman, the number 2, previously stated that he thinks the battlemechs are being well/properly simulated.

Until these two mistakes are corrected, I don't see that getting a minimally proper MW video game (mech combat wise) is probable.

Most of the closed beta crowd have basically given up. Third person was the straw that broke my back. The Alpha meta game is the EXACT opposite of the Battletech universe. So basically they have totally screwed up the idea of the game. 100% agree, someone else needs to be running the show.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Pht, on 20 October 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The way you've stated it here really is an oversimplification and kind of misses the point.

First of all, in the lore, if a pilot is talented enough at what gunnery skill is in a battlemech, they can, with a single weapon, target and expect to hit a specific section/component, and as long as the shot isn't hard enough to fall outside of the capabilities of the 'mech, hit it...

...but only with a single weapon.

For multiple weapons, the 'mech has to calculate for each weapon, and attempt to align each weapon, independently, to align under the reticule. That's a whole other and much bigger can of worms than doing it with a single weapon; so yes, you usualy incur some de-convergence of weapons fire from under the reticule. This is borne out pretty much everywhere in the lore.



No. It wasn't.

To quote the man who's job it is to know:



http://bg.battletech...5b7o7#msg676405

The hit location tables are the deconvergence mechanic.

They're there to simulate the 'mechs abilities. Gunnery skill in a battlemech is not what most people presume it is.



The only characters that did this were the author-fiat characters and specifically they did it to advance the author's intended storyline.

The stories (and I have read the majority of them multiple times) don't support the idea that 'mech pilots in general are capable of getting their 'mechs to hit a specific part of a given target.

That said, it is possible in the lore to significantly narrow your field of fire for the average pilot - usually through the use of advanced hardware or specific tactics that apply in some situations.



IMO this is only because they are stuck in the rut of "fps style" damage resolving.

It's entirely possible to sensibly simulate the 'mech's weapons handling capabilities without incurring increased complexity.

Literally all it would take would be a SINGLE raycast, simple addition, and a range choice from 2-12 and 1-6, all using data that the server probably already collects.



Mechwarrior games aren't the lore.

They're derived from it.

This guy nailed it. To bad the only people who would really agree are pretty much gone, and the ones left can't decide if they should play around of CoD or this {Scrap}

Pht, on 20 October 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The way you've stated it here really is an oversimplification and kind of misses the point.

First of all, in the lore, if a pilot is talented enough at what gunnery skill is in a battlemech, they can, with a single weapon, target and expect to hit a specific section/component, and as long as the shot isn't hard enough to fall outside of the capabilities of the 'mech, hit it...

...but only with a single weapon.

For multiple weapons, the 'mech has to calculate for each weapon, and attempt to align each weapon, independently, to align under the reticule. That's a whole other and much bigger can of worms than doing it with a single weapon; so yes, you usualy incur some de-convergence of weapons fire from under the reticule. This is borne out pretty much everywhere in the lore.



No. It wasn't.

To quote the man who's job it is to know:



http://bg.battletech...5b7o7#msg676405

The hit location tables are the deconvergence mechanic.

They're there to simulate the 'mechs abilities. Gunnery skill in a battlemech is not what most people presume it is.



The only characters that did this were the author-fiat characters and specifically they did it to advance the author's intended storyline.

The stories (and I have read the majority of them multiple times) don't support the idea that 'mech pilots in general are capable of getting their 'mechs to hit a specific part of a given target.

That said, it is possible in the lore to significantly narrow your field of fire for the average pilot - usually through the use of advanced hardware or specific tactics that apply in some situations.



IMO this is only because they are stuck in the rut of "fps style" damage resolving.

It's entirely possible to sensibly simulate the 'mech's weapons handling capabilities without incurring increased complexity.

Literally all it would take would be a SINGLE raycast, simple addition, and a range choice from 2-12 and 1-6, all using data that the server probably already collects.



Mechwarrior games aren't the lore.

They're derived from it.

[Pht]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 20 October 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Most of the closed beta crowd have basically given up. Third person was the straw that broke my back. The Alpha meta game is the EXACT opposite of the Battletech universe. So basically they have totally screwed up the idea of the game. 100% agree, someone else needs to be running the show.

Just to make sure it's clear.

I wasn't stating that someone else needed to be running the show.

...

Given that most video game developers come out of the gaming community ... and that most gamers engaged in the MW video games believe the things that Russ and Bryan believe about the 'mechs and what's fun and what's not ... I suspect that we'd be getting the same from pretty much any developers.

Thus the continued prodding from myself on the topic. Even if Russ and Bryan ultimately don't get it, someone else just might.

[jakucha]

Pht, on 20 October 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

The way you've stated it here really is an oversimplification and kind of misses the point.

First of all, in the lore, if a pilot is talented enough at what gunnery skill is in a battlemech, they can, with a single weapon, target and expect to hit a specific section/component, and as long as the shot isn't hard enough to fall outside of the capabilities of the 'mech, hit it...

...but only with a single weapon.

For multiple weapons, the 'mech has to calculate for each weapon, and attempt to align each weapon, independently, to align under the reticule. That's a whole other and much bigger can of worms than doing it with a single weapon; so yes, you usualy incur some de-convergence of weapons fire from under the reticule. This is borne out pretty much everywhere in the lore.



No. It wasn't.

To quote the man who's job it is to know:



http://bg.battletech...5b7o7#msg676405

The hit location tables are the deconvergence mechanic.

They're there to simulate the 'mechs abilities. Gunnery skill in a battlemech is not what most people presume it is.



The only characters that did this were the author-fiat characters and specifically they did it to advance the author's intended storyline.

The stories (and I have read the majority of them multiple times) don't support the idea that 'mech pilots in general are capable of getting their 'mechs to hit a specific part of a given target.

That said, it is possible in the lore to significantly narrow your field of fire for the average pilot - usually through the use of advanced hardware or specific tactics that apply in some situations.



IMO this is only because they are stuck in the rut of "fps style" damage resolving.

It's entirely possible to sensibly simulate the 'mech's weapons handling capabilities without incurring increased complexity.

Literally all it would take would be a SINGLE raycast, simple addition, and a range choice from 2-12 and 1-6, all using data that the server probably already collects.



Mechwarrior games aren't the lore.

They're derived from it.

Actually following lore on most things would make a mess of a game. Just like if they made a Space Marine game that actually followed lore. As for a more realistic-simmy type game, if that's what you mean, it was the original plan but no publishers would fund the original concept.

[Pht]

jakucha, on 20 October 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Actually following lore on most things would make a mess of a game.

No, actually, it wouldn't.

BT lore is actually well defined and the way the 'mechs perform in combat is very well defined.

Have a read:

http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

[jakucha]

Pht, on 20 October 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

No, actually, it wouldn't.

BT lore is actually well defined and the way the 'mechs perform in combat is very well defined.

Have a read:

http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

Good luck trying to balance a Mechwarrior game that translates all the weapons as they would theoretically be into game form. The real speed of the Gauss rifle comes to mind among other things. Mechs would also die fairly fast, (something I'd be fine with personally) which might not be fun for most people. It would basically be much more sim like, another thing I'd be fine with, but if no one's convinced it will make money yet, it isn't going to happen any time soon.

[Pht]

jakucha, on 20 October 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Good luck trying to balance a Mechwarrior game that translates all the weapons as they would theoretically be into game form.

You didn't read the linked thread, did you?

If you had, you'd have known that the 'mech combat performance is laid out, for the entire lore, in the TT combat rules and stats, and the "fluff text" that explains those rules, and the 'mech tech article in TechManual.

AKA, in black and white numbers.

Quote

Mechs would also die fairly fast, ...

I beg to differ. How you pilot your 'mech in combat determines how quickly it will fall apart.

[Steelgrave]

Why high alpha?

Because:

[Zyllos]

Basically, the way I view it, the only hope for this game in the long term is that PGI, after getting the major time sinking systems, like UI2.0, CW, and DX11, they will have time to sit down and review the core systems.

I am in completely concurrence with this entire thread, this game has a fundamental flaw.

It's going to take the work of the entire community getting on the same page, as much as possible, and everyone tell PGI that this is not what MechWarrior is about.

This problem has existed since the inception of MechWarrior's existence, 25+ years ago. No developer has decided to tackle the issue, for what ever reason, and just keeps perpetuating the issue.

I am just hoping that someone will have a light bulb finally come on, someone that has some authority or clout, and get the gears in motion.

[Jam the Bam]

Guys surely in a game where the mechs have split components, which make torso twisting a necessity to survive, alpha firing is always going to be advantageous simply to reduce frontal area exposure and allow you to control where the damage lies.

Now if you were to put in non convergence mechanics all that would happen is people would only be able to play mechs with large numbers of grouped and similar weapon slots, which would still allow pinpoint alphas simply because you have identical weapon profiles in the same point, and would make some mechs almost entirely useless due to the spread out nature of their hard-points? (basically the Awesome would only become even more useless).

My example would be the Highlander, each of which has several energy slots in the same location, so 2/3 PPC's there would still allow a 20/30 point pinpoint alpha. Compared to an Awesome, whose energy points are spread across the mech and would never be able to pinpoint in any meaningful way, which would simply make its inferiority in comparison to the Highlander even more pronounced.

I personally don''t mind which way it goes as long as the game is fun but from my perspective (know nothing about 'lore') making the hard-points non convergent would only serve to introduce a very focused meta.

Edited by Jammerben87, 21 October 2013 - 01:45 AM.

[Dudeman3k]

Jammerben87, on 21 October 2013 - 01:44 AM, said:

Guys surely in a game where the mechs have split components, which make torso twisting a necessity to survive, alpha firing is always going to be advantageous simply to reduce frontal area exposure and allow you to control where the damage lies.

Now if you were to put in non convergence mechanics all that would happen is people would only be able to play mechs with large numbers of grouped and similar weapon slots, which would still allow pinpoint alphas simply because you have identical weapon profiles in the same point, and would make some mechs almost entirely useless due to the spread out nature of their hard-points? (basically the Awesome would only become even more useless).

My example would be the Highlander, each of which has several energy slots in the same location, so 2/3 PPC's there would still allow a 20/30 point pinpoint alpha. Compared to an Awesome, whose energy points are spread across the mech and would never be able to pinpoint in any meaningful way, which would simply make its inferiority in comparison to the Highlander even more pronounced.

I personally don''t mind which way it goes as long as the game is fun but from my perspective (know nothing about 'lore') making the hard-points non convergent would only serve to introduce a very focused meta.

agreed, it will make certain variants more "sought after", especially the ones with lower arm actuators, but like most argue, you're still failing to see the true term "alpha"

To "alpha" is to shoot ALL your weapons at once. So even with the Highlanders stacking Laser hard points (or ballistic) its still only going to pin point 20/30 Damage at most, versus the 40/60 pin-point It currently can... the other other shots will hit various components while taxing it's heat at the expense of "panic" or "hope" it will destroy something else in the process.

This will encourage grouping and eliminate most forms of macro's.And YES! encourage torso twisting!!! woo!

As it stands, you cant torso twist an AC40 to spread damage once it's shot. But if one needs to "readjust fire" to land a 40 point hit, one can in fact dodge that AC40 with a torso twist, versus, just getting hit with 40 damage pin-point outright. mitigating that instant 40, to a 20 here 20 there.

Also with weapons in the arms... they are easier to destroy. It will bring a real "strategy" to either kill, or disarm. A thinking mans shooter. Not the FPS we have currently.

Edited by Dudeman3k, 21 October 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[AC]

Dudeman3k, on 19 October 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

The balanced (example build does in fact have a strong stance with it's capabilities, Short, Med, and Long ranges covered, and does well in most cases. HOWEVER, example A will have less weapons, producing less damage, yet preforms better than Example B at any range, and produces more kills. Why?? Pin-point.

High Alpha Meta will continue to exists with the pin-point mechanic. Some will argue "It takes skill to aim!" or "I like to shoot where I'm aiming".... I reply. "It will take even MORE skill to utilize multiple cross-hairs" and "You'll still be shooting where your aiming, you'll just need more skill without the pin-point crutch"...

I like blowing up specific parts of my opponent using my ability to aim.... but I would also really enjoy blowing up specific parts of my opponent using a more skillfully involved, muti-tasking, multi-fire-grouping, ability to aim. And It will allow most stock variants + balanced builds to be even more effective..... hell it might even discourage boating.

Time to get back into my 3 weaponed mech (which is all of them)

There is nothing wrong with the accuracy, except for maybe arm lock should never have been introduced. The issue is the generic mech slots. When you can swap a machine gun for an AC20... that is a fundamental game flaw. This is the sole reason why high alpha builds exist. We can put high alpha weapons where ever we want and on every chassis without limitation.

[Dudeman3k]

AC, on 21 October 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with the accuracy, except for maybe arm lock should never have been introduced. The issue is the generic mech slots. When you can swap a machine gun for an AC20... that is a fundamental game flaw. This is the sole reason why high alpha builds exist. We can put high alpha weapons where ever we want and on every chassis without limitation.

again, prime example why pin-point is the issue.

say You did replace the MG's for AC20's (on the K2) and alpha. witha working convergence those two 20's will only deal 20 damage to different components, and not the 40 it does now. The issue isn't "what" you can put on your mech, it's "It doesnt matter what you put on your mech and where, because it will hit the same place no matter what".

Let the K'2 have its AC20's. 20 damage here and 20 damage there is fine, but to earn that 40 point damage needs to be skillfully earned.

[Joseph Mallan]

The way to fix High Alpha convergence... DON'T BOAT. I have been saying it for months, I have 60-70 point Alphas an since it is using Mixed bagged weapons nobody has complained.

Why does PGI need to turn the car around for us to do what we need to do?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 October 2013 - 05:46 AM.