78 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Is this where I mention some form of Battle Value again?

That way an unoptimized stock Locust and a tweaked fully unlocked Jenner are not considered of equal value when building a match.

[Almond Brown]

Mercules, on 05 February 2014 - 09:37 AM, said:

Is this where I mention some form of Battle Value again?

That way an unoptimized stock Locust and a tweaked fully unlocked Jenner are not considered of equal value when building a match.

Given that folks can't even wait 2 weeks between Patches, and QQ the whole time, how long do you think they would wait for this so called "some form of Battle Value"

P.S. What the hell does "some form of Battle Value" mean anyways? I read they are working on BV 3.0 now. Was 2.0 not good enough? Maybe we should wait for 4.0 before going ahead and creating "some form of Battle Value" specific to MWO.

[Roadbeer]

R Razor, on 05 February 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

PGI please get rid of Founders Mechs..........most of the people that run them are clueless and I am tired of seeing them die in the first 2 or 3 minutes of a match. They feel as though because they were suckered out of a sum of money in the beginning they are somehow better players and don't need team support to win a match. It's a blatant cash grab from the past and it needs to stop!!!!

[Joseph Mallan]

R Razor, on 05 February 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

PGI please get rid of Founders Mechs..........most of the people that run them are clueless and I am tired of seeing them die in the first 2 or 3 minutes of a match. They feel as though because they were suckered out of a sum of money in the beginning they are somehow better players and don't need team support to win a match. It's a blatant cash grab from the past and it needs to stop!!!!

I... see what you did there!

[Mercules]

Well, "some form of Battle Value" means we can't just cut and paste TT BV for MWO. They would have to build it specifically for MWO although they could use the TT values as a guideline. Obviously weapon systems will not have the same value between the two systems but neither will JJs, ECM, and modules as well as pilot unlocks are not accounted for at all by TT BV as they don't exist in that system.

BV in TT changes because people find ways to game the system and balance always needs to be tweaked a bit as people discover somethings are just not quite right.

[PhoenixFire55]

Champion mechs are a good idea. Its just sometimes they have horrendous builds like this last Stalker of doom.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mercules, on 05 February 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Well, "some form of Battle Value" means we can't just cut and paste TT BV for MWO. They would have to build it specifically for MWO although they could use the TT values as a guideline. Obviously weapon systems will not have the same value between the two systems but neither will JJs, ECM, and modules as well as pilot unlocks are not accounted for at all by TT BV as they don't exist in that system.

BV in TT changes because people find ways to game the system and balance always needs to be tweaked a bit as people discover somethings are just not quite right.

Then add ghost BV and a Bonus for using 3pV...

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Then add ghost BV and a Bonus for using 3pV...

I think I've had enough 's for now...

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 05 February 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

I think I've had enough 's for now...

I love that lil ghost!

and agree with your post!

[Deathlike]

Almond Brown, on 05 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

There are Tutorials and they cover many aspects of the game play. Just because folks never watch them does not mean they are not their ffs.

Here we Go! http://mwomercs.com/...raining-grounds

Not to your Liking these? Does not show those Basics that a new player needs to know? What is missing?

This place is a joke. Complain about shat for the sake of complaining ffs.

Videos are generally irrelevant if you don't look for it. It must be built in or it's pointless.

For instance, there are growing changes with the UI... if the videos do not match what you see in game, then it becomes a pointless exercise in futility.

Besides, none of them cover ECM.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 February 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[Sandpit]

Daisu Saikoro, on 04 February 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:

The OP even later stated his intent and frustrations and that he had a change of understanding

So that changes you pointing MY post that was made immediately after his and before he "changed his ways" how?

[Mercules]

Deathlike, on 05 February 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Videos are generally irrelevant if you don't look for it. It must be built in or it's pointless.

For instance, there are growing changes with the UI... if the videos do not match what you see in game, then it becomes a pointless exercise in futility.

Besides, none of them cover ECM.

So instead of an easily editable video we should make a tutorial that will end up obsolete and need to be recoded and QA'd every time something changes? That is probably WHY they are using videos. A few hours of recording and few more of editing and you are done instead of weeks of coding and weeks of QA'ing.

[Deathlike]

Mercules, on 05 February 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

So instead of an easily editable video we should make a tutorial that will end up obsolete and need to be recoded and QA'd every time something changes? That is probably WHY they are using videos. A few hours of recording and few more of editing and you are done instead of weeks of coding and weeks of QA'ing.

In the current state of gaming, a complete set of tutorials built into the game is the norm. Anything advanced (for people who like to know more) is usually done through Youtube.

Name any popular/good game... they all have a basic tutorial covering the essentials. Half-Life, Warcraft 3, MechWarrior 4... they all had built-in tutorials.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 February 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[Roadbeer]

All the assets are there already to make tutorials. Maps, mechs, etc. Making a script to follow isn't that far of a reach, it's just a little time consuming, you wouldn't even need to build an AI to train against, you could still use the standing mechs.

Training videos are really a poor, lazy tool. When I used to work for Budweiser, I would have to sit through dozens of hours of sales training videos and would later have to take a test on. All of which which was completely useless as they did not cover 'real world' situations, just theoretical conversations. Not one video covered "Your drivers smashed a case of Jagermeister when they rolled the keg into my cooler", but I had over 7 hours of cultural sales training.

[SamsungNinja]

FupDup, on 04 February 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

If you think the "optimized" Champion mechs make you lose, you should have been around to see the Tabletop stock trial mechs. They were the most unviable pieces of walking trash incarnate that any Mechwarrior game had ever seen. They were overheating deathtraps that were almost always too slow, poorly armored, and/or poorly armed. The current Champs have flaws, but they at least let a noob stand a snowball's chance in hell. The TT stocks...simply could not kill anything that was remotely competent.

That's what I started in, and I thought I'd hate this game. The first 'mech I bought was a Stalker 3F (with CB), and I was blown away by the difference from the trial mechs. At least now players get an idea of what the game is like, not what the game is like while wearing lead pants.

Edited by SamsungNinja, 05 February 2014 - 01:23 PM.

[Mercules]

Deathlike, on 05 February 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

In the current state of gaming, a complete set of tutorials built into the game is the norm. Anything advanced (for people who like to know more) is usually done through Youtube.

Name any popular/good game... they all have a basic tutorial covering the essentials. Half-Life, Warcraft 3, MechWarrior 4... they all had built-in tutorials.

Here is a difference between those games and this one... those games are not still undergoing large changes on a monthly basis. See... all three you mentioned shipped "as is" with a few patches and then later expansions. Doing a one time build on a tutorial that will never be obsoleted is smart. Doing it for something that will be different next month is stupid.

I fully agree that once the game has stopped changing in large ways Tutorials would be a very nice thing to have. I don't forsee that happening for at least a year. Why build a tutorial and then have UI 2.0 and need to change the tutorial to fit that?

The reason in game tutorials exist at all is because a large number of morons who are too lazy to bother picking up an instruction manual have started to become the main market focus over the last 20 years. I could really care less if they find it difficult because it REALLY isn't. I am beginning to believe these are the same people who need to be warned not to blow dry their hair while showering.

[Ngamok]

and zero, on 04 February 2014 - 08:10 PM, said:

It is called champion to mislead poor naive new players into buying it

I am waiting for an Ascendant Mech.

[Ngamok]

Primetimex, on 04 February 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Sorry if this has offended any new players, it is not my intention to diminish resources available to you in MWO to get up and running, On contrary, I wish there were more facilities for the NPE to get up to speed, even practice matches against computer-controlled opponents would be nice (a.la Hawken) so that you can get used to the various map layouts and plan strategies and practice in your mechs and their various loadouts.

It is extremely frustrating that as you get in position, 3-4 © mechs are already down and you know even as a vet and even in 4-man, you can't possibly carry the match.

Yes, I agree that there should be a better way for new players to get accustomed to playing this game. The trial champion mechs are better than the old stock mechs. But you know what, you are now talking about 2 totally different things. Any new player now who does bad and gets stomped in a champion trial mech will do the same in their own mech because they haven't grasped how to play the game yet and focus fire. I played a Dragon Champion the other day to make a point and I got 2 kills and 4xx damage. There is nothing majorly wrong with champion mechs. It's the pilot.

http://steamcommunit...s/?id=223478174

^ me in charlie lance (name spelled backwards) in a trial dragon. I didn't get rolled.

Edited by Ngamok, 05 February 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[seymourbalzac]

You guys realize the champions are the trial mechs right? Hardly anyone buys them, it's just a bunch of new people using the trials (not buying them like you seem to think) and thats why you see so many champion mechs get owned, only very new people use them. I personally think they are a great idea because I remember when I started the trial mechs were stock mechs and they sucked shit, it took forever before you could get your first mech (this was also before cadet bonus) but now with champion mechs as the trials, at least new players have a fighting chance with the mech they are using.

[Deathlike]

Mercules, on 05 February 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

Here is a difference between those games and this one... those games are not still undergoing large changes on a monthly basis. See... all three you mentioned shipped "as is" with a few patches and then later expansions. Doing a one time build on a tutorial that will never be obsoleted is smart. Doing it for something that will be different next month is stupid.

I fully agree that once the game has stopped changing in large ways Tutorials would be a very nice thing to have. I don't forsee that happening for at least a year. Why build a tutorial and then have UI 2.0 and need to change the tutorial to fit that?

Some would argue the fundamental aspects of the game haven't changed. That's not the discussion I'd like to have, but I agree with that assessment.

If we were to discuss a tutorial about the mechlab, then sure it is impractical.

Tell me what has changed fundamentally with weapons? Gauss being the only notable functional change (the charge up effect), every other weapon has remained unchanged. Lasers (pulse or normal)? Still DOT fire. LRMs/Streaks? Still lock and fire when LOS is acquired. SRMs/Ballistics in general? Projectiles have to account for target movement vs your movement. LRMs and PPCs have a min range. Tell me how these things couldn't have had a tutorial?

Quote

The reason in game tutorials exist at all is because a large number of morons who are too lazy to bother picking up an instruction manual have started to become the main market focus over the last 20 years. I could really care less if they find it difficult because it REALLY isn't. I am beginning to believe these are the same people who need to be warned not to blow dry their hair while showering.

This, I agree with, but you have to consider that this game is not a boxed game and that not everyone is a forum goer OR an Internet search artist. I would like to think people would have done a little research, but ultimately you want to give the game the best first impressions as possible. It makes selling/marketing your game a whole lot easier.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 February 2014 - 02:16 PM.