1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

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........?


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

round 3... FIGHT!

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:

round 3... FIGHT!

I heart you

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

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

Except applied effectiveness including misses and all other mechanics show that ballistics being more effective with their potential. This even before considering how best to apply situational discussions about DPS since these applied figures from in game show this even with their lack of accuracy, they still perform better.

Edited by Noesis, 06 January 2014 - 07:07 PM.

[Craig Steele]

@ Varent, lol. OK, OK. But my point is that if a player spends most of their time loading and walking in the majority of games, its not the experience / entertainment they are logging in for. PP MM or Meta game, doesn't matter, you won't keep your market. IP won't change a damn thing.

@ Noesis, not sure if you are reiterating what I said or not but yes (again) I think weapons should have different flavours, its a good thing to have variety which in turn breeds more tactics and engagement in a game.

@ Sandpit, mhm, but people don't take those weapons expecting to do big dmg alpha's. MG's are close range finishers, low calibre AC's are longer range and more ammo sustained fire weapons (theory is you get the same DoT from ammo assuming equal accuracy AC2 45 shots = 90 dmg, AC 20 5 shots = 100 dmg) and so on and so on. Like all weapons, ideally they are situational to the pilot, chassis, mission and terrain.

[Noesis]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

@ Noesis, not sure if you are reiterating what I said or not but yes (again) I think weapons should have different flavours, its a good thing to have variety which in turn breeds more tactics and engagement in a game.

I'm agreeing with you yes.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:03 PM, said:

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

yup

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

@ Varent, lol. OK, OK. But my point is that if a player spends most of their time loading and walking in the majority of games, its not the experience / entertainment they are logging in for. PP MM or Meta game, doesn't matter, you won't keep your market. IP won't change a damn thing.

Most players that are in it for the shooting environment just leave as soon as they die and jump in a new match. This is very common. If nothing else we need CW for both sides to get what they want out of the game. Either way nothing can be determined till we know how the game will function with CW in place.

[Sandpit]

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

Except applied effectiveness including misses and all other mechanics show that ballistics being more effective with their potential. This even before considering how best to apply situational discussions about DPS since these applied figures from in game show this even with their lack of accuracy, they still perform better.

I jsut don't agree here and again I think it's somewhat subjective. I don't think burst fire or convergence (except what I mentioned earlier) will fix what you're talking about though

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:

round 3... FIGHT!

I find it a bit ironic reading this, seeing that you have 127 posts so far in this thread alone already.

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

I jsut don't agree here and again I think it's somewhat subjective. I don't think burst fire or convergence (except what I mentioned earlier) will fix what you're talking about though

I agree, I'm also uncertain what the best solution to this issue is, but the problem exists.

Subjective is having an opinion, so MWO has as many solutions as players based on that statement. The findings from looking at weapons potential output at least allow us to look at these things in relative terms even if things can be situational. Which is more objective than opinions.

Ok sometimes ballistics miss, sometimes they hit. Same goes for lasers but the accuracy is better. Again beam mechanics provide opportunity to correct for ticks which help to indicate better accuracy of a beam hitting. But as a result the overall applied damage and the fact that it is spread means they perform less to their potential than ballistics. Otherwise we wouldn't see the significant drop off in performance as per applied gaming values. This is before considering other advantages for situations those weapons may have.

[Varent]

I still feel the solution would be moderating jump jets, prevent the damage alot of teams take coming in without reprisal and you change the dynamic of brawling extensively. This would make groups feel alot more effective overall in different roles.

That said and reinforcing another point... we need the ability to test ideas on the test servers more often....

Edited by Varent, 06 January 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

I agree, I'm also uncertain what the best solution to this issue is, but the problem exists.

Subjective is having an opinion, so MWO has as many solutions as players based on that statement. The findings from looking at weapons potential output at least allow us to look at these things in relative terms even if things can be situational. Which is more objective than opinions.

Ok sometimes ballistics miss, sometimes they hit. Same goes for lasers but the accuracy is better. Again beam mechanics provide opportunity to correct for ticks which help to indicate better accuracy of a beam hitting. But as a result the overall applied damage and the fact that it is spread means they perform less to their potential than ballistics. Otherwise we wouldn't see the significant drop off in performance as per applied gaming values. This is before considering other advantages for situations those weapons may have.

Yea but it's also like saying i did 600 damage! I did great!
Uhm it was spread out over 12 mechs though.....

as opposed to

I only did 350 damage
It was all to one mech though

Which one was actually more effective?

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

I find it a bit ironic reading this, seeing that you have 127 posts so far in this thread alone already.

Im not sure how to feel about the fact that you actually wanted to go count them? What would concern me more is ive seen very few of these names in game.... and I play ALOT in multiple elos since I run with alot of groups of newer players to help teach them.

I would hope to see at least a few of the names posting here in game but I see very very few... wich leads me to believe alot of these posts are being made by players that dont actually play alot...

[Khobai]

Quote

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

Its a common concept in shooters that have a single hit location and single life bar. Thats not mwo. In mwo its a broken game mechanic.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Its a common concept in shooters that have a single hit location and single life bar. Thats not mwo. In mwo its a broken game mechanic.

most shooters dont have a single hit location at all... they have different damage values base on where you hit actually... im not sure where your getting that from...

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

Yea but it's also like saying i did 600 damage! I did great!
Uhm it was spread out over 12 mechs though.....

as opposed to

I only did 350 damage
It was all to one mech though

Which one was actually more effective?

If your a surgeon actually less damage and more kills is more effective. People pursuing large damage isn't actual the ideal, you want to kill with the least amount of damage possible. (Pinpoint surgeon abilities anyone?).

However we are still talking about these things in "relative" terms. The study of in game stats is a COMPARISON incorporating numerous elements as it reflects on the overall outcomes of games.

Therefore the ability to perform either of the above examples you provided is going to be easier to perform if you have more POTENTIAL to do so.

This is what the applied figures demonstrate, they are an overall comparison of relative effectiveness.

And again if you argued weapon effectiveness for every single possible situational permutation that could exist in game, you'll be here till .... well I hope you get the idea.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

They have a single life bar with damage multipliers for headshots. Again thats not mwo.

MWO has seperate life bars for each location. Its nothing like other shooters.

actually you do less damage for hitting arms and legs as well. its a simple mechanic of focusing your shots in a shooter to do more damage and be more effective. Its the same with a different concept of life bars.

[Craig Steele]

@ Varent

I protest

Used to play for 4+ hours a day. Grinding Phoenix / Sabre is 18 mechs at least 2x each so 36 games. A few Jenners and Orions for fun after grinding.

But now? Yeah, no you won't see me much in game.

Played a 2 BLR games this morning. 1st one took a LRM salvo or two moving to cover at 2-15. 10 seconds later 3 team mates are dead 0 - 3 and a Jag one shots me from cover. Game over 2-25. exit game

Second game, 1 kill, 7 assists 5 minute 12 - 4 stomp. They never had a chance.

Every day i play less..........

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Im not sure how to feel about the fact that you actually wanted to go count them? What would concern me more is ive seen very few of these names in game.... and I play ALOT in multiple elos since I run with alot of groups of newer players to help teach them.

I would hope to see at least a few of the names posting here in game but I see very very few... wich leads me to believe alot of these posts are being made by players that dont actually play alot...

FYI, you can click on a link on the list of threads that shows you the post counts.

Spoiler

And I hope the actual reason for not seeing names in-game that often is from a healthy player population that plays at different times of day from around the world.

No need to continue being antagonistic with dismissive responses and circular logic.

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

@ Varent

I protest

Used to play for 4+ hours a day. Grinding Phoenix / Sabre is 18 mechs at least 2x each so 36 games. A few Jenners and Orions for fun after grinding.

But now? Yeah, no you won't see me much in game.

Played a 2 BLR games this morning. 1st one took a LRM salvo or two moving to cover at 2-15. 10 seconds later 3 team mates are dead 0 - 3 and a Jag one shots me from cover. Game over 2-25. exit game

Second game, 1 kill, 7 assists 5 minute 12 - 4 stomp. They never had a chance.

Every day i play less..........

So are you playing less simply for your lack of joy regarding the game and your want for chanage and is that why your here? Why do you post and what motivates you?

I suppose thats what im getting at. Alot of people seem to post here for changes that would make them play more and while that is a good thing they should also understand that the game needs to move in a direction that will get the MOST to play, even if that majority seeks a play style that might not appeal to some people that is the direction all companies need to move in to make profit. Its simply a fact. Personally I want that. I want to see the most players possible playing a game I enjoy even if some of those changes are things I dont want personally.

[Dock Steward]

Cimarb, on 06 January 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

While I am not for or against an ammo nerf, it wouldn't fix the issue we are even talking about, so there is no reason to do it.

I disagree. It ups the risk of using Ballistics without touching it's reward. Makes Ballistics more balanced. More balanced Ballistics equals more balanced Ballistics even when combined with Energy weapons.