424 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

The bold we agree on. Some players are afraid for their toons to die in digital combat as if it is an affront to their manliness or something.

Blame KDR. Youd see a lot more recklessness if KDR didnt exist.

[3rdworld]

Khobai, on 08 January 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Blame KDR. Youd see a lot more recklessness if KDR didnt exist.

I would blame it more on no respawns. You cannot afford to take many risky moves.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 08 January 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Blame KDR. Youd see a lot more recklessness if KDR didnt exist.

Maybe. I know I'm Pretty Reckless as it is!

Craig Steele, on 08 January 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

@Joseph,

Dear God, If your 280 your Dad is HUGE

Scary thing is he's fitting in my shoes already!!!

[Bagheera]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

First off, I can't think of a single car in the entire world that only weighs 500 lbs.

That's because for a car to weigh that little it has to be something ridiculous like a Peel p50. (~140lbs)

KTM X-Bow ~ 1800lbs
BAC Mono ~ 1190lbs
Ariel Atom ~ 1350lbs (not the v8 either)

From the 2013 F1 racing rules:

Quote

ARTICLE 4: WEIGHT
4.1 Minimum weight :
The weight of the car, without fuel, must not be less than 690kg at all times during the Event.
If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, it will be weighed on a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate.

Which is ~1300lbs.

[Mawai]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

Well, again, I imagine it would depend specifically on the make, model, and caliber of the specific AC they were using. True, variated calibers had higher bursts then the same type of AC but there were also accounts of a specific type of AC's using single shots. My guess is, the "single-shot" model is what PGI is going with. In that case, you have to make the projectiles consistent, while still have their own drawbacks so that they are not perfectly consistent.

If I had to guess then I would say that some of the people at PGI simply mapped the battletech rules ... not paying any attention to "lore" or "canon".

AC20 - one shot (die roll) in one round - 20 damage
... same with every other weapon

So every AC does the damage in one shot. UAC gets a chance for a second shot with the possibility of a jam. They decided to implement lasers as damage over time.

What I REALLY did not understand from PGIs design is why all the weapons were scaled with tabletop damage and heat but different rate of fire and cool downs and YET someone expected that the weapons would retain their relative balance when going from firing every 10 seconds in the table top game to vastly increased firing rates and pinpoint damage in the video game. Retaining the table top base damage and heat generation numbers while changing each weapon to different rates of fire and cool downs makes no sense. The damage and heat of the weapons needed to be adjusted in concert with rate of fire and then everything adjusted from there to get an initial starting balance point.

The really odd thing is that PGI had 6 months of closed beta and 12 months of open beta when they could have dialed in different numbers on a weekly or monthly basis in order to accumulate usage and effectiveness data and come up with a scheme that gave decent weapon balance ... but they did not do this ... and it totally mystifies me why not.

[ReXspec]

Mawai, on 08 January 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

If I had to guess then I would say that some of the people at PGI simply mapped the battletech rules ... not paying any attention to "lore" or "canon".

AC20 - one shot (die roll) in one round - 20 damage
... same with every other weapon

So every AC does the damage in one shot. UAC gets a chance for a second shot with the possibility of a jam. They decided to implement lasers as damage over time.

What I REALLY did not understand from PGIs design is why all the weapons were scaled with tabletop damage and heat but different rate of fire and cool downs and YET someone expected that the weapons would retain their relative balance when going from firing every 10 seconds in the table top game to vastly increased firing rates and pinpoint damage in the video game. Retaining the table top base damage and heat generation numbers while changing each weapon to different rates of fire and cool downs makes no sense. The damage and heat of the weapons needed to be adjusted in concert with rate of fire and then everything adjusted from there to get an initial starting balance point.

The really odd thing is that PGI had 6 months of closed beta and 12 months of open beta when they could have dialed in different numbers on a weekly or monthly basis in order to accumulate usage and effectiveness data and come up with a scheme that gave decent weapon balance ... but they did not do this ... and it totally mystifies me why not.

The need to copy the TT game mechanics makes more sense... but, it is as you said: If they are incorporating TT mechanics, why are they making the decisions they are making as far as mechanics and balance issues go?

To answer, honestly I have no ********* clue. Some of their choices as far as balance goes truly mystifies me as well...

[Joseph Mallan]

Your being mystified is fitting when we have fixes like "Ghost" heat!

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

Your being mystified is fitting when we have fixes like "Ghost" heat!

PLEASE don't get me started on "heat scaling." I can understand weapons getting hotter over time as you fire them (hence the heat system that is already present in the game) but heat doesn't come out of nowhere just for the sake of lessening pinpoint damage.

In fact, they didn't even tone-down pinpoint damage with the implementation of "heat-scaling." They punished boaters, AC-2, AC-10, and AC-20 users.

But that is what the whole question is, right? How do we tone-down pinpoint damage?

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 07:35 AM.

[Mystere]

Khan Hallis, on 07 January 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

I never said PGI was listening to anyone. I said they are having their strings pulled. Like puppets.

Hence my use of the word "cater".

[ReXspec]

Mystere, on 08 January 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

Hence my use of the word "cater".

If they really are catering to anyone, I would LOVE to know who the actual F*CK they are catering to other then themselves.

[Joseph Mallan]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

PLEASE don't get me started on "heat scaling." I can understand weapons getting hotter over time as you fire them (hence the heat system that is already present in the game) but heat doesn't come out of nowhere just for the sake of lessening pinpoint damage.

In fact, they didn't even tone-down pinpoint damage with the implementation of "heat-scaling." They punished boaters, AC-2, AC-10, and AC-20 users.

But that is what the whole question is, right? How do we tone-down pinpoint damage?

Its a simple answer that many don't wanna hear. If you fire more than one weapon at a time you get a RoF. The More weapons the wider the ring! Many of the Mechs Fluff in the TROs had passages that told of over taxed targeting systems and bypasses Warriors had to make to overcome them. I am an Alpha enthusiast, and I have no problem with the idea that if I wanna fire 4-6 weapons at once I am not going to get Pin Point Accuracy.

Lasers should have the tightest RoF of course since they have no recoil or other physicsy thing affecting LoS.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

If they really are catering to anyone, I would LOVE to know who the actual F*CK they are catering to other then themselves.

People that like mech models. I think that works out very well for them.

Well, at least I thought so until the Catapult and Hunchback models were turned adaptable... Mixed results there.

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Its a simple answer that many don't wanna hear. If you fire more than one weapon at a time you get a RoF. The More weapons the wider the ring! Many of the Mechs Fluff in the TROs had passages that told of over taxed targeting systems and bypasses Warriors had to make to overcome them. I am an Alpha enthusiast, and I have no problem with the idea that if I wanna fire 4-6 weapons at once I am not going to get Pin Point Accuracy.

Lasers should have the tightest RoF of course since they have no recoil or other physicsy thing affecting LoS.

My solution would be four fold: Put weapon RoF at TT standards, and put armor values at TT standards. Remove "heat scaling," and shorten burst time of lasers. That would increase the longevity of mechs, matches, and force pilots to seriously consider where they are shooting.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 07:51 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Maybe. But the pace of the game would be very slow. Also I spent 30 years making Mechs on TT into wrecking balls, I could defeat most Mechs in 4 turns or less. Folks would choke if they died in around 40 seconds!

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

But since our AC20 rounds are 285lbs per shell... I don't see a car "on the road" that weighs as little as...Me?

There are some microcars that would fit that description; the Peel P50 is 53.9 inches (length) x 50.0 inches (wheelbase) x 39.4 inches (height) & weighs 130 lbs (and is apparently street-legal in both the US and UK).

[Voivode]

So....barely noticed the changes to AC/10. Doesn't feel any different to me. AC/20, definitely harder to wack a target at range. Probably not a bad thing.

But most people raging here probably didn't actually try the changes before reaching a conclusion about them. So go the forums.

Edited by Voivode, 08 January 2014 - 08:15 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Strum Wealh, on 08 January 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

There are some microcars that would fit that description; the Peel P50 is 53.9 inches (length) x 50.0 inches (wheelbase) x 39.4 inches (height) & weighs 130 lbs (and is apparently street-legal in both the US and UK).

hat peel P50 is a kids toy!
So an exception for every rule.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 08:15 AM.

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 08:05 AM, said:

Maybe. But the pace of the game would be very slow. Also I spent 30 years making Mechs on TT into wrecking balls, I could defeat most Mechs in 4 turns or less. Folks would choke if they died in around 40 seconds!

You remember how long matches were in MW4? They ran for at least TWICE the length that matches in MWO run for. Not very many people were complaining then. : /

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 08:12 AM.

[Voivode]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

You remember how long matches were in MW4? They ran for at least TWICE the length that matches in MWO run for. Not very many people were complaining then. : /

MW4 had respawn

[ReXspec]

Voivode, on 08 January 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

MW4 had respawn

Depends on the match type.