1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

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.

The entire thread is circular logic and posts about posts and thoughts repeated over and over again. WHere have you been?

Dock Steward, on 06 January 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

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.

It could yes. It needs testing

[Noesis]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

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.

Choice, not FOTM. Big difference.

Which from a business perspective is more appealing as diversity allows for a greater spectrum of product.

And at least having varied choice with roles and play styles has the potential then to appeal to an even greater populace which actually boosts potential revenue that can be obtained.

Volume > Niche

[Craig Steele]

@Varent

Fair enough question even though its playing the man a little. I'll respond .

I joined back in April I think and until X-mas my number of posts was 4. I played usually around 4+ hours a day.

A few days back I wondered if my recent PP experience in game was common and started a thread. Since then many people have expressed similar experiences and many threads have been started by others along similar lines. A few people have said get on with yet, I get that. A few have tried to explain it and I thank them for their efforts.

Yesterday I played 3+ hours and was 4/6 WL with one game, just one, that was not a stomp. We lost that game, but neither the 4 I was on the winning team or the 5 others we lost generated any entertainment for me.

Today I played two games. I'll probably play some more later to grind some Griffons and Wolverines, but it won't be with the expecation of any entertainment. It will be to kill some time while I having a sherbert or 2

So I watch here in between RL stuff and make a few posts hoping communicating my experiences can influence a change in a game I would like to play conceptually, but currently have no desire to play.

If I am not one of the "most" and my desire for a competitive enjoyable gaming experience is the minority, then yes eventually I will seek what I desire from another game.

Free to play models build in large attrition of player base as a cost of their business so I know I won't be missed, none of us will. But forums are for feedback so I use this tool.

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

@Varent

Fair enough question even though its playing the man a little. I'll respond .

I joined back in April I think and until X-mas my number of posts was 4. I played usually around 4+ hours a day.

A few days back I wondered if my recent PP experience in game was common and started a thread. Since then many people have expressed similar experiences and many threads have been started by others along similar lines. A few people have said get on with yet, I get that. A few have tried to explain it and I thank them for their efforts.

Yesterday I played 3+ hours and was 4/6 WL with one game, just one, that was not a stomp. We lost that game, but neither the 4 I was on the winning team or the 5 others we lost generated any entertainment for me.

Today I played two games. I'll probably play some more later to grind some Griffons and Wolverines, but it won't be with the expecation of any entertainment. It will be to kill some time while I having a sherbert or 2

So I watch here in between RL stuff and make a few posts hoping communicating my experiences can influence a change in a game I would like to play conceptually, but currently have no desire to play.

If I am not one of the "most" and my desire for a competitive enjoyable gaming experience is the minority, then yes eventually I will seek what I desire from another game.

Free to play models build in large attrition of player base as a cost of their business so I know I won't be missed, none of us will. But forums are for feedback so I use this tool.

Might as well do the same. Im still active. in fact very very active. Im on at least once a day for an hour or two and most days im on for 6+. I lead a guild, I do 12 mans, I do training and drop in all types of elo. I see alot of players in my guild, probly the majority floating back and forth between several different shooters and this with the primary complaint being a lack of CW. For that alone I seek to make it an enjoyable FPS experience. What my own worry is is that it will become a simulation experience and those I play with will simply leave and continue enjoying there other shooting games. That said I can only state my own worries and fears.

I suppose for me I see most enjoy the experience so far minus the CW. So I want to maintain that status quo.

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Choice, not FOTM. Big difference.

Which from a business perspective is more appealing as diversity allows for a greater spectrum of product.

And at least having varied choice with roles and play styles has the potential then to appeal to an even greater populace which actually boosts potential revenue that can be obtained.

Volume > Niche

I can only judge from my experience, who I see play the game, those I talk to and game with etc. This does not appear to be the case.

Edited by Varent, 06 January 2014 - 08:29 PM.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

I can only judge from my experience, who I see play the game, those I talk to and game with etc. This does not appear to be the case.

Should help to illustrate the point. Unless of course the people you talk to all are owners of gold Mechs?

Other than that I can't help but think how nice it would be to have as many real player pilots as possible to help populate the IS and beyond.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Should help to illustrate the point. Unless of course the people you talk to all are owners of gold Mechs?

Other than that I can't help but think how nice it would be to have as many real player pilots as possible to help populate the IS and beyond.

None of those are FPS games Online.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

None of those are FPS games Online.

Volume based business models. Not for a niche market.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

Volume based business models. Not for a niche market.

You should use examples of successful shooting games and what they offer. Prefferably one that is designed to last. ALso use examples of MMO games since that is hopefully what this will become.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

You should use examples of successful shooting games and what they offer. Prefferably one that is designed to last. ALso use examples of MMO games since that is hopefully what this will become.

Don't need to, the basic business principles still apply.

I'd like to see MWO be as popular as possible to as wide a target audience as possible, so you have to appeal to diversity to do that.

The only constraints is that I'd like it to be a good interpretation of BT. But the title of the game kind of helps here, just like Coke is known as a beverage appealing to many.

I personally don't think you have to constrict MWO down to one specific META and can interpret BT successfully and have numerous roles viable to appeal to a wider audience. One of the principles of game balance as it happens also according to the wiki definition.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

Don't need to, the basic business principles still apply.

I'd like to see MWO be as popular as possible to as wide a target audience as possible, so you have to appeal to diversity to do that.

The only constraints is that I'd like it to be a good interpretation of BT. But the title of the game kind of helps here, just like Coke is known as a beverage appealing to many.

I personally don't think you have to constrict MWO down to one specific META and can interpret BT successfully and have numerous roles viable to appeal to a wider audience. One of the principles of game balance as it happens also according to the wiki definition.

those business's rely on a product that can be pitched to anyone. This does not, in any way shape or form. You are dealing with a specific niche crowd and need to provide specific things to appeal to that crowd.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

those business's rely on a product that can be pitched to anyone. This does not, in any way shape or form. You are dealing with a specific niche crowd and need to provide specific things to appeal to that crowd.

True but not everyone is the same in the MWO target audience either are they?

[Varent]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

True but not everyone is the same in the MWO target audience either are they?

I agree, but there is a majority of online gamers that play shooter games wich they should be focusing on as a company to be successful.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

I agree, but there is a majority of online gamers that play shooter games which they should be focusing on as a company to be successful.

I think it would help, though I don't see why you have to limit yourself to one specific form of game play to make MWO successful.

And I do see a lot of FPS games having different roles not just the one. Again widening appeal by making them equally as enjoyable to play ideally and thus increasing potential revenue streams with a wider populace.

idk, maybe PGI/IGP have limits to income or a specific target audience they would like. But they did implement 3PV on the basis of wider appeal to differing gamer styles. In which case you can't then complain if people leave the game since if it is only intended to meet a limit niche market then maybe things are as intended?

Either way you are of course entitled to your preference for what you want MWO to be, I'll stick with my more open and diverse model. Since I think it is still possible to achieve these goals and make a good BT simulation.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

I think it would help, though I don't see why you have to limit yourself to one specific form of game play to make MWO successful.

And I do see a lot of FPS games having different roles not just the one. Again widening appeal by making them equally as enjoyable to play ideally and thus increasing potential revenue streams with a wider populace.

idk, maybe PGI/IGP have limits to income or a specific target audience they would like. But they did implement 3PV on the basis of wider appeal to differing gamer styles. In which case you can't then complain if people leave the game since if it is only intended to meet a limit niche market then maybe things are as intended?

Either way you are of course entitled to your preference for what you want MWO to be, I'll stick with my more open and diverse model. Since I think it is still possible to achieve these goals and make a good BT simulation.

I would love to see a decent BT simulation. I just dont feel its viable. And I kinda feel they have to target a portion of players that will be drawn to a game like this that sadly will not appreciate BT mechanics and the world. They are a fairly small company with limited resources. BT simulations also tend to run better and sell along the lines of finished projects with a single player campaign. LL being the exception but even then it was never a major title and had a rather small (if devoted) following.

Being an online shooter there are certain things that they need to do to attract and make money. Also its fairly obvious the publishers of the game have there hands pretty deep into the pockets of the game overall so they are pushing it a certain way as well already.

That said... this was the most civil of conversations I think we have had Noesis. Thanks.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 06 January 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

No, there's no difference in accuracy from weapon type in TT. Pilot gunnery skill + own movement penalties + target movement penalties + terrain penalties + heat penalties = what you need to roll over on 2 dice to hit, e.g. 4 (gunnery skill) + 1 (walking) + 3 (target moved 5 hexes) + 2 (2 hexes light woods in line-of-sight) + 1 (9 points of heat) = roll 11+ to hit on two dice - no matter what weapon you used.

As for dev explanation of why they did lasers as beam-duration, I don't think I've ever seen one. At least I can't currently remember one. But the beam-duration mechanic does to a degree simulate the random hit location system of TT, due to it spreading its damage over time, but I've never seen a dev say that was even intended.

I always wondered where the devs got the idea of lasers with beam-duration, but it seems it was actually something they basically adopted from Mechwarrior: Living Legends. They might not even know why the MW:LL team made the choice it made. I think we know why they did it - they realized that hit-scan and instantenous damage has proven imbalanced in all previous mechwarrior titles and thought this was the best way to keep the idea of lasers as "true lasers" (e.g. not sci-fi ray guns with slow projectiles) and still maintain balance.

From what I've seen, MW:LL also had most ballistic weapons as burst or rapid firing weapons, there appear to be no "large damage projectiles" that are directly mouse aimed in MW:LL.
So they avoided that problem from the start - we don't know how well it would have worked out with full customziation and the like, however, since MW:LL never was developed to a point where it allowed mech customization. I would really like to have seen their game get to that point ,however, and would have liked seeing how they dealt with the challenges that would come up.

[Joseph Mallan]

Still of the mind that the fatal flaw in weapons is the payers don't want them to be fatal.

[Sandpit]

Ok just a question.idea:

If convergence and burst fire mechanics were completely 100% off the table. Moses himself posted on the forums saying it will not happen.

What would you guys do to help balance the weapon classes?

I ask it this way because honestly that's really the huge sticking points between the two "sides" that I see. It's not even that I am saying they couldnt' use a little love or tweaking, I just do not like the idea of burst fire or losing convergence. So, if those were simply not optional, what other ideas do you have?

I'm just asking to maybe get someone to come up with some different ideas that maybe more can agree upon. The more that agree upon the idea, the more likely it is you can get PGI to say "Hey, these guys have a good idea with a lot of support, we should take a look at this and dedicate some of our limited resources to it"

Joseph Mallan, on 07 January 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Still of the mind that the fatal flaw in weapons is the payers don't want them to be fatal.

I would agree with you to an extent Joe but there are a few discrepancies in weapon classes right now that could be balanced out a bit better. There is definitely the "easy button" crowd wanting everything dumbed down though but I don't see that in the last several pages on this thread. most of those lost interest when we started having a serious discussion and stopped feeding the trolls for the most part

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Ok just a question.idea:

If convergence and burst fire mechanics were completely 100% off the table. Moses himself posted on the forums saying it will not happen.

What would you guys do to help balance the weapon classes?

I ask it this way because honestly that's really the huge sticking points between the two "sides" that I see. It's not even that I am saying they couldnt' use a little love or tweaking, I just do not like the idea of burst fire or losing convergence. So, if those were simply not optional, what other ideas do you have?

I'm just asking to maybe get someone to come up with some different ideas that maybe more can agree upon. The more that agree upon the idea, the more likely it is you can get PGI to say "Hey, these guys have a good idea with a lot of support, we should take a look at this and dedicate some of our limited resources to it"


I would agree with you to an extent Joe but there are a few discrepancies in weapon classes right now that could be balanced out a bit better. There is definitely the "easy button" crowd wanting everything dumbed down though but I don't see that in the last several pages on this thread. most of those lost interest when we started having a serious discussion and stopped feeding the trolls for the most part

Well, one option without changing the mechanics could be to halve the damage, and halve the cooldown. You get the same net damage, but less pinpoint. But this does come with issues, the ultra would need a jam reduction, the AC5 would then have a cooldown of .75, not much longer than the AC2 (I think keeping it at .52 would be fine) but still have 2.5 damage. The only real difference would be range and travel speed between those two cannons. On top of the fact: Why does my AC20 only do 10 damage? That might be difficult to explain.

It has issues, but it would be simple to implement. Just change the XML.

Of course, this could just lead to the boating of PPCs and LLs for long range damage. But the ACs would still hurt up close.

Edited by Mcgral18, 07 January 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[Sandpit]

Mcgral18, on 07 January 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

Well, one option without changing the mechanics could be to halve the damage, and halve the cooldown. You get the same net damage, but less pinpoint. But this does come with issues, the ultra would need a jam reduction, the AC5 would then have a cooldown of .75, not much longer than the AC2 (I think keeping it at .52 would be fine) but still have 2.5 damage. The only real difference would be range and travel speed between those two cannons. On top of the fact: Why does my AC20 only do 10 damage? That might be difficult to explain.

It has issues, but it would be simple to implement. Just change the XML.

Of course, this could just lead to the boating of PPCs and LLs for long range damage. But the ACs would still up close.

What do you mean by halve the damage? So an AC20 would do 10 damage? AC10 would do 5?

[Noesis]

Sorry I don't see things that "polarised" Sandpit. There are been lots of different suggestions presented in the forum about the idea including tweaks or refinements to existing mechanics.

It is also not your place to decide what is popular or not. Or slap labels on people that they exist in one camp or another.

Whilst I have reservations about burst fire being needed since other more subtle changes could be made, out of all of the new mechanics that have been suggested it does appear to be the most popular of them as made by balance forum posters which is hardly representative.

I wouldn't therefore consider myself to be a fervent supporter of burst fire, but if it is for the greater good of MWO I would be happy for it to be considered as solution to the problems presented. I'm not sure if this makes me pro or con burst fire, but I don't think I live in any little box you have created to make things more organised for yourself to understand. It might help you personally but it may not be the way others see it.

What I will say is it is for PGI to prioritise or decide on using any suggestions as needed. So we don't need a chair person or secretary telling us how we should discuss these things thank you very much. This forum is available for use as players see fit and even if motivations are to make life easier for yourself, no-one has given authority for you to decide how we discuss things so please refrain from doing so.

Edited by Noesis, 07 January 2014 - 08:00 AM.