437 replies to this topic

[Melissia]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:44 AM, said:

And if you're going to argue semantics

I didn't argue semantics. I simply disputed the basic assumptions behind your post, you know, because I disagreed with them.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:44 AM, said:

The difference here is, rather than say the UAC2 can only go 500m, and it's effective range and maximum range are both 500, it can also elect to shoot past it's effective range into it's maximum range.

But its effective range isn't 500m. It's 1km. After that you get in to extreme ranges, where its effectiveness drops off.

It's the same with lasers. After their max range, the cohesion of the beam is reduced, causing it to lose strength (due to air, dust, etc). ER technology reduces this effect, allowing it to be effective at longer ranges. In space, most non-missile weapons technically have infinite range (missile weapons technically do, but they can only seek up to the point where they run out of fuel).

The effective range of accuracy should be up to the pilot, with the reticle moving around / shaking based on the situation (such as movement, being hit by enemy fire, or overheating), rather than a randomized cone.

Edited by Melissia, 30 November 2011 - 03:52 AM.

[Tyrant]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 02:14 AM, said:

Most of it's monetization is aesthetics, and they are hard choices. Originally the game was meant to be multiplatform. Being locked into only 360 and unable to do a PS3 port forced them into PC only or risk losing money developing for one console rather than both. PvP only, when the majority of Mechwarrior games have focused on singleplayer (I'm aware you and others played primarily for multiplayer, the vast majority who purchased the games however did so for single player. As is the case with almost every game that offers both single and multi player portions.) F2P was an easy choice after the other two were made, I'll agree. But otherwise would have been very unlikely.

I assumed they chose not to publish to consoles because they were having trouble finding a publisher as consoles require higher investment cost then PC where both Microsoft and Sony require a significant cut of the pie for box sales.

Quote

if we're going to assume a failed implementation, there's no point in discussing anything to begin with. Why not assume the game will suck in general and be done with it?

Not assuming failure however every feature has an associated risk and some features are so fundamental that should they fail the whole experiences is tainted by it.

Quote

WoT is a terrible game. Whether or not you want to call the closest, it'll still continue being a terrible game.

Terrible or not, the game is a success, that success can only be measured by one constant, revenue. WoT continues to make lots of bang.

Quote

A: You use skill to time your shots and increase your relative accuracy by quickly coming to a stop, letting the shot align and firing, then moving again. It may not be 100%, but it should be close to offer a fairly high chance to hit at optimal range (Somewhere between medium and long's max ranges, for a long range weapon for example.)

B: You risk missing while firing on the run in exchange for being harder to hit.

C: Many games use CoF without being arbitrarily "Frustrating" to a majority of users whether or not it's frustrating to you. Subjective.

D: The overall tactics required to aim accurately utterly prevent poptarting and the like, if you have to expose yourself for more than a split second to get good accuracy.

A: "Fairly high chance" to hit the mech in general or a specific hit-box?

B: People will not move and fire, you are promoting camping, AWP time.

C: Be specific about which game, most shooters use a CoF but they also guarantee pixel precision for aiming. This is the important bit, this is exactly what people here are preaching against, using it for your argument is hypocritical.

D: Again you are promoting bad game play, once a team has setup over-watch over an area the other team cannot expose at risk of losing the fight, as such they will not, good thing MWO will have arty support. WoT exactly.

Quote

It was bad or it would have been far more popular. TT is pretty balanced with it's rolling to hit and rolling to determine hit locations. The armor/damage model is based off that, the CoF abstracts that while retaining player skill. Basically you control the +/- hit modifiers on top of where to aim. If you aim CT with a well focused CoF at med---X---Long range, your probability of hitting CT is high, with a chance to hit LT/RT/H. You aim RT you've got a chance to hit CT,RA,H.

Its a good thing that we are discussing a electronic game rather than a tune based one.

Quote

It's only heavily luck based if you try and poptart or shoot while overheating or sprinting around or as you're getting hit by someone else. The CoF should be relatively small if stationary and un-hit for several seconds. It allows close to that accuracy but exposes you to risk in exchange for that. It's better for the game.

Creating static game play where one side is to afraid to risk the engagement or turning the corner on each other ending in a stalemate, its not better for the game.


While all of you suggestions are valid to battle-tech they would make a less then enjoyable game play experience in an electronic format.

[Haeso]

Melissia, on 30 November 2011 - 03:47 AM, said:

I didn't argue semantics. I simply disputed the basic assumptions behind your post, you know, because I disagreed with them.

Except you did. Whether or not it's an AA gun, or anything of that sort is totally irrelevant.

Quote

But its effective range isn't 500m. It's 1km. After that you get in to extreme ranges, where its effectiveness drops off.

And again you ignore the point.

Quote

It's the same with lasers. After their max range, the cohesion of the beam is reduced, causing it to lose strength (due to air, dust, etc). ER technology reduces this effect, allowing it to be effective at longer ranges. In space, most non-missile weapons technically have infinite range (missile weapons technically do, but they can only seek up to the point where they run out of fuel).

And the point would be inside it's optimal/effective range, it is fairly accurate, up to it's maximum range, it is less accurate. Pretty simple.

Quote

The effective range of accuracy should be up to the pilot, with the reticle moving around / shaking based on the situation (such as movement, being hit by enemy fire, or overheating), rather than a randomized cone.

You realize the reticule movement would be random, right, and that wouldn't be skill!? Otherwise it would not exist as it's fairly easy to predict fixed recoil patterns: See... every FPS ever with fixed recoil.

[Melissia]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

Except you did. Whether or not it's an AA gun, or anything of that sort is totally irrelevant.

I do not have a facepalm image macro strong enough for this situation. So I'm just going to ignore this...

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

And the point would be inside it's optimal/effective range, it is fairly accurate

Yes, it's fairly accurate up to 1000km.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

You realize the reticule movement would be random, right, and that wouldn't be skill!?

Yes it would, because while the reticle movement would be random, you would still determine when the trigger was pulled, and therefor where the shot landed. It is not "I pulled the trigger and the shot didn't land where I aimed at!", it's "damn, I didn't time that trigger pull right...".

[Haeso]

Tyrant, on 30 November 2011 - 03:50 AM, said:

I assumed they chose not to publish to consoles because they were having trouble finding a publisher as consoles require higher investment cost then PC where both Microsoft and Sony require a significant cut of the pie for box sales.

They were not allowed due to their license of the IP to develop for the PS3.

Quote

Not assuming failure however every feature has an associated risk and some features are so fundamental that should they fail the whole experiences is tainted by it.

And what makes the risk of failure any more severe than the ease of oneshotting that was commonplace in MW4 with pinpoint accuracy? Many ERLL plus a UAC2/5 or to finish off the one-hit protection used to work near instantly.

Why assume the worst about one and not the other, exactly? That doesn't strike you as a bit unfair?

Quote

Terrible or not, the game is a success, that success can only be measured by one constant, revenue. WoT continues to make lots of bang.

Again, this notion that they must follow in WoT's path for whatever reason, is foolish. Why do you feel the need to assume the devs are lying about not being Pay to Win?

Quote

A: "Fairly high chance" to hit the mech in general or a specific hit-box?

Specific hit box assuming good conditions. Good conditions include not being hit. A stationary mech can easily be hit by a moving mech, perhaps not in a specific location, but a hit still messes with his aim. See where I'm going with this?

Quote

B: People will not move and fire, you are promoting camping, AWP time.

No, I'm promoting risk/reward, you're forgetting mechs are big. The goal isn't to make it harder to hit a mech, it's to make it harder to hit where you want on that mech. Someone running at you is going to be able to hit you if you're stationary, he may not hit where he wants, but he's going to mess up your aim.

Quote

C: Be specific about which game, most shooters use a CoF but they also guarantee pixel precision for aiming. This is the important bit, this is exactly what people here are preaching against, using it for your argument is hypocritical.

Most shooters you don't survive being hit, the idea here, is, again, that you simply have to risk yourself for that sort of accuracy. You should be able to hit a mech while moving at regular movement speed (Not sprint), consistently. Just not in a chosen location.

Quote

D: Again you are promoting bad game play, once a team has setup over-watch over an area the other team cannot expose at risk of losing the fight, as such they will not, good thing MWO will have arty support. WoT exactly.

Except all they have to do is hit them once with something like a gauss and that reticule focus is gone, it's completely different. And yes between information warfare and indirect fire (Long toms, off-map, Narc+Arced LRMs).

Quote

Creating static game play where one side is to afraid to risk the engagement or turning the corner on each other ending in a stalemate, its not better for the game.

That's not how it would work for a myriad of reasons, if you turn that corner and they don't have radar to tell you it's about to happen, but you know where he's sitting, you smack him and throw off his aim then keep moving.

Quote

While all of you suggestions are valid to battle-tech they would make a less then enjoyable game play experience in an electronic format.

For you. After many assumptions about how it would play out.

[Melissia]

For reference, sniping games (or games with sniping) often use a similar mechanic. The breathing of the sniper causes the reticle to move, and so the player must time their shots accordingly.

[Haeso]

Melissia, on 30 November 2011 - 04:01 AM, said:

I do not have a facepalm image macro strong enough for this situation. So I'm just going to ignore this...

The purpose of the weapon has nothing to do with it's effective range or accuracy for the purpose of this thread. It would be more accurate than a weapon of equal suggested range/maximum range, perhaps, but it would not change how it interacts with it's own effective/maximum range. I don't know how to make this any more simple for you.

Quote

Yes, it's fairly accurate up to 1000km.

1000km? You mean m? And again totally irrelevant to the point of the post. It's about how accuracy at maximum range versus optimal range works.

Quote

Yes it would, because while the reticle movement would be random, you would still determine when the trigger was pulled, and therefor where the shot landed. It is not "I pulled the trigger and the shot didn't land where I aimed at!", it's "damn, I didn't time that trigger pull right...".

Except it would be random how long it takes before a usable firing solution is presented to you because it's random. So it would retain the problems with pinpoint accuracy, easy coring. While making it random how long it takes to line up an easy core... How wonderful. I'd contend CoF has effectively as much abstraction AND eliminates the ability to bypass the armor/damage model.

[Melissia]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:17 AM, said:

The purpose of the weapon has nothing to do with it's effective range or accuracy

... yes, it does.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:17 AM, said:

1000km? You mean m?

Yes, a typo.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:17 AM, said:

Except it would be random how long it takes before a usable firing solution is presented to you

That depends on how much reticle movement we're talking about. Similarly to your suggestions above, one could run cool and be much more accurate, or move more slowly to try to aim better. This makes aiming at extreme ranges difficult to do while moving, as it should be (any sniping 'mech shouldn't be doing so while in a full sprint).

It might be random, but at least the shots land where you put them, not in some random location somewhere around where you put them.

[Haeso]

The purpose of the weapon does not determine it's optimal range or maximum range. Whatever the game says it's optimal/maximum range is, is what it is. Whether the weapon is designed to shoot aircraft or other 'Mechs may determine it's base accuracy (How large the CoF is) but it would NOT determine how range affects it's accuracy, we're talking about deviation using a CoF. The CoF represents the total deviation possible.

I honestly do not know how to make this any clearer, I'm trying, but you're still acting as if it's something else.


And the random movement still gives a random abstract advantage, whether one abstraction is more palatable to you than the other, is personal preference.

[Melissia]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

The purpose of the weapon does not determine it's optimal range or maximum range.

... yes... yes it does. The purpose of the weapon is the reason why it has the range it has. An ER laser, for example, has a longer range, because it is built as an enhanced laser which has extended range over normal lasers.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

Whatever the game says it's optimal/maximum range is, is what it is.

Ah, so you'd be okay with SRMs having an effective range of 1200m and LRMs having both a minimum and maximum range of EXACTLY 477m, as long as the game says it does?

I'd prefer the game to make sense, myself.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

whether one abstraction is more palatable to you than the other, is personal preference.

You just now figured this out?

Edited by Melissia, 30 November 2011 - 04:38 AM.

[Malavai Fletcher]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

That's not how it would work for a myriad of reasons, if you turn that corner and they don't have radar to tell you it's about to happen, but you know where he's sitting, you smack him and throw off his aim then keep moving.

What about his teammates all standing still next to him?He gets off one shot spread over the mech,how ever many teamates he has with him get off standing still shots with a huge bonus to accuracy and their aim undisrupted.

[Haeso]

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

You want to argue what it's actual range is? IS UAC2 range is 750 not 1km.

And it still is completely irrelevant for how accurate it would be at half of that, 375, versus it's maximum, 750. The number you assign to it's range is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand and how it's accuracy at effective range is different from it's accuracy at maximum range. If all you want to do is troll, do it elsewhere.

[Haeso]

Malavai Fletcher, on 30 November 2011 - 04:41 AM, said:

What about his teammates all standing still next to him?He gets off one shot spread over the mech,how ever many teamates he has with him get off standing still shots with a huge bonus to accuracy and their aim undisrupted.

If they're all "Standing next to him" Use a longtom or off-map artillery? Or come from another angle while he distracts them? You've plenty of options.

[Tyrant]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

And what makes the risk of failure any more severe than the ease of oneshotting that was commonplace in MW4 with pinpoint accuracy? Many ERLL plus a UAC2/5 or to finish off the one-hit protection used to work near instantly.

Why assume the worst about one and not the other, exactly? That doesn't strike you as a bit unfair?

Your over exaggerating this, in all my years of playing MW4 I have never witness this actually work in an open or league drop, while technically possible it is extremely unlikely to happen and simply cannot happen to equal class mechs, that statement is true until mektek started messing with numbers.

Quote

Again, this notion that they must follow in WoT's path for whatever reason, is foolish. Why do you feel the need to assume the devs are lying about not being Pay to Win?

While I have mentioned WoT, their gold ammo or consumables are not the important thing to MWO but rather the actual game play, the moment to moment interaction.

Quote

Specific hit box assuming good conditions. Good conditions include not being hit. A stationary mech can easily be hit by a moving mech, perhaps not in a specific location, but a hit still messes with his aim. See where I'm going with this?

No, I'm promoting risk/reward, you're forgetting mechs are big. The goal isn't to make it harder to hit a mech, it's to make it harder to hit where you want on that mech. Someone running at you is going to be able to hit you if you're stationary, he may not hit where he wants, but he's going to mess up your aim.

Most shooters you don't survive being hit, the idea here, is, again, that you simply have to risk yourself for that sort of accuracy. You should be able to hit a mech while moving at regular movement speed (Not sprint), consistently. Just not in a chosen location.

Except all they have to do is hit them once with something like a gauss and that reticule focus is gone, it's completely different. And yes between information warfare and indirect fire (Long toms, off-map, Narc+Arced LRMs).

I am visualizing your proposed game play and I can see what you are trying to get to, however it still promotes static combat / camping rather than maneuvering, what more it does not fix the supposed problems of hitting the same location it just turns an aggressive MW4 play-style into an extremely defensive one.


This is exactly what WoT moment to moment game play is, almost to the letter.

Quote

For you. After many assumptions about how it would play out.

Yes I am making many assumptions, my assumptions are based on, MW3, MW4, MWLL, CBT lore, CryEngine3, past Piranha games the evolution of the gaming market and who their contenders would be in the same market space.

[Tyrant]

Tyrant, on 30 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

This is exactly what WoT moment to moment game play is, almost to the letter.

Which would not be so bad if not for their spotting system, dice rolls on armour penetration, retarded artillery system or map design.

Those how have played clans wars, company battles or opens above tier 6 will have some understanding of this.

Edited by Tyrant, 30 November 2011 - 06:43 AM.

[Haeso]

I've played WoT, I didn't need to play it for a significant amount of time to see it's flaws, what I am suggesting is not similar. First and foremost the differences in mobility, scale and damage model make for a very different game.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 06:43 AM.

[Tyrant]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 06:42 AM, said:

I've played WoT, I didn't need to play it for a significant amount of time to see it's flaws,

I believe you do, you can explain to someone how RMP works in WoW, how to execute a Shoryu > FADC > Ultra in street fighter or the substitutes of a EvE fleet fight and its prelude but they will never truly understand or appreciate it.

This is also true of your understanding of MW4 and that of numerous other people who have posted on any subject related to MW4.

Quote

what I am suggesting is not similar. First and foremost the differences in mobility, scale and damage model make for a very different game.

Design is always in the details, without a full overview its impossible to say one way or another which would be better, its just boils down to ideas and personal preference, both of which are cheap. But you already knew that as a developer.

[Haeso]

Tyrant, on 30 November 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:

I believe you do, you can explain to someone how RMP works in WoW, how to execute a Shoryu > FADC > Ultra in street fighter or the substitutes of a EvE fleet fight and its prelude but they will never truly understand or appreciate it.

This is also true of your understanding of MW4 and that of numerous other people who have posted on any subject related to MW4.



Design is always in the details, without a full overview its impossible to say one way or another which would be better, its just boils down to ideas and personal preference, both of which are cheap. But you already knew that as a developer.

I learn quickly. The ability to understand how something works is also different from the ability to do something. That said I spent six months in MW4, no matter who you are I can't see how that's not an adequate time to learn the ins and outs of the game.

I'm fine with it being personal preference, what I'm not fine with is people arbitrarily declaring something as better or worse without the qualifier of personal preference, masquerading as if their preference being superior is fact rather than opinion. Both pinpoint with things that knock the reticule around and CoF are abstractions designed to increase the quality of play.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 07:19 AM.

[HCubCadet1972]

Neanot, on 15 November 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

I'm not really sure that you could feasibly do away with ***.

If you blocked alpha strikes, how would you technically define an AS (by both boats and diverse spec mechs)? 100% of weapons fired? 90+% fired? What ever it is, people will find the level and sit just below it, possibly by adding extra weapons that they never intend to use, just so that they can fire everything else and stay below whatever level is set for an AS.

There are also some occassions when you legitimately want to AS, but not do it during the course of normal events, such as you and an opponant being low on health, and you have to kill him before he kills you, and the only way to do that is an AS.

I would go more for having a strong penalty for using all of your weapons at the same time, or within a short time. Possibly, this could be done with having a modifier to heat for every additional weapon fired, over and above the base heat produced per weapon. For example, each weapon has a base heat production value, and this would be additive, but there would also be a x1.05, say, modifier per weapon, performed on the total additive heat value. The more weapons you fire simultaneously, the greater the modifier. This would still allow you to fire a few high-heat weapons without the penalty, but many low-heat weapons would be more risky.

You could, alternatively, have the chance of catastrophic failure (increased weapon jams, rounds exploding in the chambers, that sort of thing) that is based on the number of weapons fired at once, and not heat, so a few large weapons would be fine, but an AS would prove hazadous to your health.

Altimately, though, I think if they keep customisation options from being able to completely outfit any chassis with one type of weapon entirely, then you should minimise the desireability of AS, other than in emergencies.

The possibility of sending your reactor into full on meltdown, or do serious damage to your own targeting/radar/weapons or other systems needs to exist.

Thomas Hogarth, on 15 November 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

I... really don't understand the coolant flush mechanic from previous MechWarrior games. Ignoring the fact that Battletech proper does not have such a mechanic (at least, not without going to experimental tech that takes up tons/crits), it does not make sense from a pure, very basic mechanical point of view.

Flushing the coolant on an active system should momentarily spike the heat, as you are draining all your coolant out for a brief period of time. True, replacing said coolant with fresh, cool fluid should net you a nice return later, but the spike preceding that may well be catastrophic.

Furthermore, I can't seem to wrap my head around 'Mechs having the immense amount of replacement coolant fluid on-board "just in case".

You aren't dumping too much coolant, simply adding fresh, cool coolant to the system. Some hot coolant would have to be vented though. Adding cool coolant would lower the temperature. As far as having vast amounts of fresh coolant, They didn't, and it was easy to run out of rather quickly. I'm not a fan of the additional coolant thing though. I personally want to see some no0b fire 6 ER PPC's at the same time and detonate, taking half his team with him.

[MagnusEffect]

another idea i just thought of that sort of addresses this issue rather easily:

http://mwomercs.com/...n-an-amendment/

Edited by MagnusEffect, 30 November 2011 - 07:47 AM.