1080 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

Won't bother cross posting the same thing but I put up videos of modern day equivalents of BT Autocannon here.
This really needs to become one topic. What does a guy have to do, email Support?

mania3c, on 06 January 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

Isn't pulse laser more accurate version of normal laser? I don't know.. I am asking..

Because in different thread..there were guys talking about lasers, transitions from TT to MWO..and they were talking about better accuracy from tabletop..

Also ..for your instant hit vs beam.. when you miss you miss whole damage.. as you know it.. while you can still maintain some damage with lasers... I understand this is not much advantage in current meta.. I just wish meta would swing more towards to fast and small mech and than I can laugh when people will be crying about OP lasers..

Not sure which they were claiming had better accuracy.
In TT you had hit rolls, pulse lasers had a bonus increasing their chance of hits.
In MWO, no hit rolls and I am not sure pulse lasers have anything that makes up for that. Hitting depends on the pilot, duration is what they were described as having in TT, shorter time. That is my belief why pulse weapons seem less here, they have nothing to compensate for the TT bonus to hit, not sure if anyone ever came up with an idea for that.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

No, Sarna and TT aren't MWO. That's the distinction. The rule sets on Sarna for TT are not going to translate to a shooter. They'd translate GREAT to an RTS style game, not so much when you can't factor in PSR and to hit modifiers due to individual skill when it comes to aiming without killing off a good portion of your player base because they simply will not understand and accept that rules made 3 decades ago won't "jive" with their notion of a modern-day shooter.

See, what had me confused is what was originally quoted was descriptions found on sarna for quick reference, which then lead to a post arguing that before using sarna to make changes, that some things needed to be understood; with a numbered list on elements that didn't make sense in regard to the quoted descriptions.

Sure I could have missed the page about a failed system on sarna, or missed the page that talked about any of the other points, but I've only seen descriptions on various topics and references to the table top game on sarna; since what I've read on sarna seems more about Battle Tech in general than only the table top game.

I hope I'm making sense here, in trying to explain why I'm bothering in the first place.

[Craig Steele]

I don't think anything will "drive away" a younger player population except a poor game experience.

Dungeons and Dragons has snared what, 3 generations, and remains an incredibly valuable IP.

If this game could provide a regular entertainment value, the "younger" generation of players will buy into the IP.

[Khobai]

Quote

Another thing I don't understand. Even if they went to a burst fire mechanic they still wouldn't do damage the same way lasers do. Lasers do instant damage, ballistics have travel time

Obviously we dont want weapons to be identical. But ballistics doing pinpoint damage is extremely overpowered and needs to be reduced. It should be impossible for any weapon to deal all of its damage at once.

[Sandpit]

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

See, what had me confused is what was originally quoted was descriptions found on sarna for quick reference, which then lead to a post arguing that before using sarna to make changes, that some things needed to be understood; with a numbered list on elements that didn't make sense in regard to the quoted descriptions.

Sure I could have missed the page about a failed system on sarna, or missed the page that talked about any of the other points, but I've only seen descriptions on various topics and references to the table top game on sarna; since what I've read on sarna seems more about Battle Tech in general than only the table top game.

I hope I'm making sense here, in trying to explain why I'm bothering in the first place.

Sarna is directly from the source books BUT it's kind of a wiki. It's editable and not everything can be published due to copyright, etc.

Sarna is a GREAT reference for looking up Btech info in general but it's not MWO.

Does that make sense?

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

I don't think anything will "drive away" a younger player population except a poor game experience.

Dungeons and Dragons has snared what, 3 generations, and remains an incredibly valuable IP.

If this game could provide a regular entertainment value, the "younger" generation of players will buy into the IP.

You're also not dealing with the same type of game. Take a look at the popular shooters regardless of your opinion on them. Look at the shooters that make millions upon millions of dollars. Now think about all of the players that enjoy those. Those gamers aren't going to accept "I aimed at his shoulder but hit his foot?!?!??!"
Those also aren't going to be the players that jump on the forums and offer constructive feedback generally. (Take a look at CoD and BF4 forums if you want a real treat once in a while)
It's all about their "elite skillz" and getting that headshot. Now you take that away and while you and a few others are going to enjoy it more you're turning away a huge chunk of the demographic.

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

I don't think anything will "drive away" a younger player population except a poor game experience.

Dungeons and Dragons has snared what, 3 generations, and remains an incredibly valuable IP.

If this game could provide a regular entertainment value, the "younger" generation of players will buy into the IP.

you are vastly vastly overconfident in the ability of the the game to grab the attention of the YOLO generation without a simple and effective 'shooter' concept that reels in that same generation now. I play dungeons myself. I am a major minority among my friends that do.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Sarna is directly from the source books BUT it's kind of a wiki. It's editable and not everything can be published due to copyright, etc.

Sarna is a GREAT reference for looking up Btech info in general but it's not MWO.

Does that make sense?

Exactly, that's why I asked that first question earlier about the comments on the quoted weapon descriptions.

[Sandpit]

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Exactly, that's why I asked that first question earlier about the comments on the quoted weapon descriptions.

I may be getting lost here....

[Craig Steele]

@ Khobai

Sorry, disagree here. More choice / variety is what differentiates the game. front load ballistics is OK, but the one shot effect it current creates is not. Increase armour factors to 2 / 3x max dmg potential of weapons (eg, max Alpha 60 dmg?, max armour therefore 150+ points)

Personally I like the idea that weapons are situational. AC's currently fit the "battle line" mode, stripping large chunks of armour off slower mechs. They are (and should be) hard to use against speedy lights.

Lasers / SSRM for those pesky lights, mhm, np.

Build your mech for the role you want to play on the feild, all in one basket, multi purpose, its all good.

@ Varent. Actually atm I have zero confidence this game can hold even die hard BT fans like me for much longer. The entertainment value is virtually non existant. But I don't think that its the IP.

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I have to say that I'm confused again by your post.

Are you arguing that descriptions on sarna are BT's Rules sets?

I am not no. I am arguing that sarna is a usefull tool for BT facts. But it should be carefully examined before everything from there is implimented into the MWO game. SARNA is setup to describe the BT experience not the MWO experience.

[Khobai]

Quote

More choice / variety is what differentiates the game

Im not disagreeing. Lasers, Ballistics, and Missiles should all be different.

All im saying is that pinpoint alpha is an overpowered mechanic and needs to be removed from the game.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

I may be getting lost here....

I probably should have worded my question better, and maybe simply shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

[Craig Steele]

CoD and BF4 also have respawns. Get shot in the head, wait your time and get back in there.

MWO is not that game. Once your dead your dead, back to your 2 minute search / load screens for a new match.

atm, this issue of pin point alpha one shotting mechs is meaning many players spend more time watching the load screen and walking to the skirmish line than fighting.

I don't care what IP you use, old or young gamers want more than load screens and pressing "w".

[Varent]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Im not disagreeing. Lasers, Ballistics, and Missiles should all be different.

All im saying is that pinpoint alpha is an overpowered mechanic and needs to be removed from the game.

I disagree. Its a common concept in shooters. It needs its place.

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

CoD and BF4 also have respawns. Get shot in the head, wait your time and get back in there.

MWO is not that game. Once your dead your dead, back to your 2 minute search / load screens for a new match.

atm, this issue of pin point alpha one shotting mechs is meaning many players spend more time watching the load screen and walking to the skirmish line than fighting.

I don't care what IP you use, old or young gamers want more than load screens and pressing "w".

its an amazing concept, leave the game. start a new one. And also not all of those game modes have respawns.

Also we are basically still in beta. CM hasnt been instituted yet, there is a good chance there will be some sort of respawn or allow you to use more mechs.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

Increase armour factors to 2 / 3x max dmg potential of weapons (eg, max Alpha 60 dmg?, max armour therefore 150+ points).

The problem with that is you essentially nerf every lower damage weapon in the game. SL, MG, ML, AC2, AC5
All of those become irrelevant or downright useless

[Noesis]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

Personally I like the idea that weapons are situational. AC's currently fit the "battle line" mode, stripping large chunks of armour off slower mechs. They are (and should be) hard to use against speedy lights.

Lasers / SSRM for those pesky lights, mhm, np.

It would certainly help with making the game less homogeneous if weapons had character don't you think? Oh look they do already, who would have thought it.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

there is a good chance there will be some sort of respawn or allow you to use more mechs.

Drop Ship mode. I think that right there has the potential to be a huge change in the way the game is played. It would make for longer battles and draw out things a bit more making ammo even more important. That's another problem with discussing balance at the moment. We simply do not have the complete game that has been described by the devs.

They have a much better idea of what will be implemented once they finally get past the UI2.0 bottleneck (personal opinions about missed deadlines, programming abilities, cynicism, etc.) and how that will affect the way the game is played.

If you must load up four mechs, use those four for a single incursion similar to a respawn mechanic I think that changes a lot of things simply because you have to either buy 4 of the exact same mech (no doubts there will be some min.maxers that do so but it won't be the majority IMHO) OR you'll have to be smart and pick 4 mechs that will give you the ability to change out your play style according to the map (which map voting is also coming) and what your team really needs in order to swing the battle with your next mech selection

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

The problem with that is you essentially nerf every lower damage weapon in the game. SL, MG, ML, AC2, AC5
All of those become irrelevant or downright useless

Some of the above bordering on this description in the current meta already.

Also relative armour increase without changing damage potential is a buff to armour dependent Mechs anyhow for all weapons. DPS becomes more relevant to this. Of which ballistics have been give the highest in MWO.

Not only that with some weapons being able to concentrate more on fixed points to selectively apply damage to mitigate the need to remove all this extra armour added to a Mech whereas other weapons have mechanics that would spread fire over an overall increased armour profile more readily.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

It would certainly help with making the game less homogeneous if weapons had character don't you think? Oh look they do already, who would have thought it.

Ya know..........
There have been several pages over the last few of good, healthy, exchanging of ideas. No real snark (except in good humor at a few of us that know we can poke at one another) or cynicism. No {Scrap}, just ideas being kicked around on how to improve the game. Then this happened. Seriously dude, can't you contribute like everyone else is even if you don't agree with someone........?

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

Some of the above bordering on this description in the current meta already.

Also relative armour increase without changing damage potential is a buff to armour dependent Mechs anyhow for all weapons. DPS becomes more relevant to this. Of which ballistics have been give the highest in MWO.

Not only that with some weapons being able to concentrate more on fixed points to selectively apply damage to mitigate the need to remove all this extra armour added to a Mech whereas other weapons have mechanics that would spread fire over an overall increased armour profile more readily.

But here's really at the basis of what we disagree on and it really is subjective.

DPS isn't the end-all be all. It really isn't even that significant in my opinion for one simple reason.

A ballistics might have more potential DPS but that's potential, not actual.
So if you miss with a ballistic weapon your DPS is actually 0
If I miss with a beam on the initial shot I can still walk it in and maybe do half damage (LL Example) for 4 damage

That's a huge difference