281 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

Let me give you an example. Player A spends 4 hours a day in game honing his skill. He works hard, spends the money he earns from grinding and unlocks his skill tree to the full extent.

Linear skill trees are bad game design too. All they accomplish is forcing players to grind but dont actually give the player any meaningful choices. Having to grind simply because if you dont youll be weaker than other players is BORING. And if you are going to have linear skill trees, at least give each weight class its own skill tree, dont have all four weight classes share the same skill tree.

A better skill tree is one that gives the player several different choices in how to develop their character. A very basic implementation of this would be to have three different skill trees each with two subtrees: command/support, strike/assault, and recon/pursuit. By dividing skills into different roles and implementing a system that prevents any one player from learning every skill you make the game much more interesting. PGI can also monetize it better by selling respec items; so its win-win for everyone (its monetized better because players currently only buy GXP one time, while players would buy respec items multiple times in order to try out different specs).

SHS vs DHS is the same thing. Its linear and its not presenting the player with a compelling choice. Its just saying if you dont spend the 2 million extra youll be weaker than other players. There's nothing interesting about that because its just a blatant grind to artificially inflate the cost of mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 28 February 2014 - 03:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 27 February 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

*sighs*

"SHS aren't viable in a DHS game, we should make them that way!"

No, you shouldn't. By TRO 3055, 70% of the new designs were DHS stock- and virtually all of the SHS ones were lights- mediums and up were getting DHS strapped into them as a matter of engineering doctrine, as they needed all the cooling they could get.

By 3075, it's up to over 95% of them- and the one notable example is a Clan light used to train new pilots that explictly mounts SHS to help train them in heat management. The SHS in 3050 is already doomed to the second-rate scrap heap, and shouldn't even be bothered with in the long run- it's replacement will end up being the compact heat sink, starting in the late 3050's with a similar cooling profile but able to squeeze twice as many into the same space as a single SHS takes up.

Really Its as low as 70% in the 3055? I thought there were only like 6 Mechs that had singles in the 3055...

Dramborleg, on 27 February 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

The fun of D&D isn't reliant on its gameplay balance, it's based on interaction with an imaginary world as well as social interaction with friends. As modface pointed out, this is somewhat off-topic, but it's a false equivalence because an RPG (tabletop or otherwise) and a skill-based shooter are very different beasts, and never the twain should meet (although with the influence of CoD, they have been meeting more and more lately).

So you don't start with a pretty cheap gun, fight for money to buy better guns and ammo, upgrade to even more destructive weaponry in a FpS?

Monky, on 27 February 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

I really hate this one aspect of battletech lore diehards, they don't seem to understand that this is a game which relies on being fun in order to keep new players rather than just atrophy into nothing as whales move on, which means lore will sometimes have to go out the window. If we were playing battletech MMO then it would be fine, you'd have a sense of progression and gated tech levels based on where you were in the timeline, but THIS is not THAT.

SHS need to become at least not crippling. I'm not even saying they need to directly compete with DHS, but they need to not cripple new players until that player gets enough to upgrade to DHS.

I'm sorry but TT has been using single and double heat sinks for 3 decades now. And it has been a lot of fun. If there is a problem between sinks it lies here in how MW:O has implemented them both. 15 Single sinks should cover 15 points of heat... every time it is generated. SO Sinks should be venting roughly every 2.5 seconds... give or take a few 0.1 of a second. Doubles would require 8 sinks to do the same work. 30 years thats how it worked perfectly well.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 February 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

while I agree there are some "direct" upgrades, I must say that since the heat scale is so out of whack in MWO, that is the problem, not them being a "direct upgrade". In TT many mechs were still quite viable on SHS. In MWO, the LCT-1V and your average GaussaPult are about it. DHS pay the crit space tax, as their "balancing" in theory, but SHS are near useless, which is NOT TT.

A Jager40 used to be viable on 10 doubles. Its why I liked it so much, it was a heavy hitting Mech that actually worked like a combat unit. Which is why I am here, to play a combat/fighting game. There should be limits to how much heat our vehicles can take, but I should be able to put together a hard hitting payload that does not overload my heat system.

My Pretty Baby Awesome for instance. I built it to the specs of a Thug. A TT 80 ton mech that could fire 2 PPC and 2 SRM6 non stop and remain -6 on the heat scale! I would overheat after 3-5 salvos in MWO.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

COD, Battlefield, SpaceMarine, DayZ, just a few games that come to mind. Ones I play at least and that most of my friends play. You level up to unlock better weapons and gain access to new abilities and customization that is far superior to any players starting out in the game. The more you play the more you get and you gain access to more stuff. This is how most video games are in fact. Longevity and time and money invested is rewarded. In fact this is generally a neat fact about life. You get what you put into it. There should not be a 'participation award'

I can't speak for DayZ, but your first three examples are not in any way analogous to the SHS/DHS situation.

CoD, Battlefield, and Space Marine do require you to unlock new weapons, equipment, and perks through linear progression and unlock trees, but those new weapons and equipment are not a direct upgrade to your starting kit, or at least they're not intended to be. If you were to completely reset a highly-skilled player's unlocks, he would still be able to play very effectively with the starter equipment. Even against players of equal skill, he might be disadvantaged by a lack of choices, but he wouldn't be completely helpless. This is not the case for SHS and DHS.

I'll grant you that unlocking perks and perk slots do amount to direct upgrades, but that's more analogous to modules and mech efficiencies. Mech efficiencies are really the only traditional progression scheme we have in this game. SHS to DHS is not game progression, as no sane individual would actually run an SHS build to try to build up cash for the DHS upgrade.

[wanderer]

Quote

Really Its as low as 70% in the 3055? I thought there were only like 6 Mechs that had singles in the 3055...

TRO 3055 upgrade to be precise. Most of the lights are the SHS designs, with the heaviest design still using SHS stock is the Huron Warrior.

Let's put it this way, folks. If we had been set to start in 3055ish, I'd have been happy to never see a POS SHS design- but 3050 meant that a lot of iconic chassis for the game could be put in from the start- the price being that they came stock with 3025-era gear, and most notably SHS. No SHS? None of the original Founder's designs would have been viable. No poster-child Atlas. In fact, you wouldn't be able to find three chassis of ANYTHING in 3050 with DHS stock. The whole point of the Clan invasion is that it's a time of transition- warfare going from the cobbled-together steeds of MechWarrior-knights to the "modern day" combats, before plunging back into the jagged tech chaos that is the Jihad or the ad-hoc to exotic war machines of the Dark Ages. Battletech inherently does not balance it's tech- so it can represent the incredibly broad nature of the setting, where machines built with centuries-dated technology walk next to designs that are so new, they barely got a chance to primer the armor before it got into combat.

Yes, that means that there will be "best" and "not best", and those will not be balanced against each other. Imbalance is so built into the setting that attempting to remove it wrecks the game in the process- something I worry even more about with Clan tech, never mind the SHS.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 28 February 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

TRO 3055 upgrade to be precise. Most of the lights are the SHS designs, with the heaviest design still using SHS stock is the Huron Warrior.

Well I'll be!

And they were darn good light designs too as I recall!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 February 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[Dramborleg]

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Let me give you an example. Player A spends 4 hours a day in game honing his skill. He works hard, spends the money he earns from grinding and unlocks his skill tree to the full extent. He buys double heat sinks and everything else his mech needs. He feels accomplishment and is very happy with all he has done. He is proud of his mech. Player B logs in and spends 1 hour a day honing his skills. He is a more skilled player then player B. He however cannot invest the same amount of time and effort. What you are saying is that Player B should be rewarded for putting 1 hour into a game, while player A should simply have his hours waisted away because you feel they should be balanced off the bat? What you are saying is basically you want to pay someone for doing 1 hour of work the same amount as someone doing 4 hours. Games are based pretty heavily on real life senses of accomplishment. They reward your time and effort. Its why the gaming industry has moved towards it. Its an easy concept. Im sorry you feel that everyone should be rewarded instead of people that are actually willing to invest time and effort.

If Player A feels that time spent playing a supposedly fun game is wasted unless he is "rewarded" with treats, maybe he should be playing a different game. You speak in terms of payment and time investment as if it's a job. A game is not meant to be a job. It is not supposed to be work. Player B should be rewarded for being better, and if A's skill in the game is bad enough that he has trouble enjoying it without a crutch and he absolutely refuses to improve, he should probably turn to something easier for him.
And supposedly in "real life," people achieve things because they are achievements, not because they will be rewarded. People didn't attempt to climb Mount Everest because there was some rich dude with a million dollars for the first person to do it waiting at the top, they did it "because it's there." People don't practice sports because they know that if they do it enough they can be pro and have all the money and fame their greedy heart desires, they do it because they want to be good at something. That any "achievement" must be rewarded, and that dedication of time and effort without improvement is an achievement, is confused, incorrect thinking, and I don't believe it's as widespread as you think it is.

Edited by Dramborleg, 28 February 2014 - 05:25 AM.

[Purlana]

Kaeb Odellas, on 28 February 2014 - 03:50 AM, said:

I can't speak for DayZ, but your first three examples are not in any way analogous to the SHS/DHS situation.

CoD, Battlefield, and Space Marine do require you to unlock new weapons, equipment, and perks through linear progression and unlock trees, but those new weapons and equipment are not a direct upgrade to your starting kit, or at least they're not intended to be.

But most of skill perks in space Marine are direct upgrades. In fact they have a heat sink upgrade for the Plasma Cannon.


http://spacemarine.w...lasma_Cannon%29

Edited by Purlana, 28 February 2014 - 07:25 AM.

[Pjwned]

wanderer, on 28 February 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

Yes, that means that there will be "best" and "not best", and those will not be balanced against each other. Imbalance is so built into the setting that attempting to remove it wrecks the game in the process- something I worry even more about with Clan tech, never mind the SHS.

Imbalance inherently doesn't work in a competitive online game like this so by leaving it in chances are very likely you're making the game worse than by trying to fix it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 28 February 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

Well I'll be!

And they were darn good light designs too as I recall!

No. Not really. A few looked neat, but almost all of them were mediocre as designed, and I believe that was intentional to show that the tech was still not really understood (kind of like in WW I when take had overtaken tactics). But all in all, despite their looks, most were scarcely better than 3025 designs, and some, like the Hollander, realistically a lot worse in actual use. I would say that the Heavy and Assaults are where the "best" designs were featured, with the Bandersnatch (criminally underrated), Penetrator, Gunslinger and Cerberus leading the pack.

The upgrades did fix a lot of the initial production run oversights, like, adding DHS to mechs with ER PPCs, etc. (dtto 3050 Upgrade). That said, this guy


Is oddly enough, my fave light in the 3055 TRO.

But even the "Upgrade" art could do little to help most designs like the Scarabus, which need a total makeover.

[Osric Lancaster]

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Let me give you an example. Player A spends 4 hours a day in game honing his skill. He works hard, spends the money he earns from grinding and unlocks his skill tree to the full extent. He buys double heat sinks and everything else his mech needs. He feels accomplishment and is very happy with all he has done. He is proud of his mech. Player B logs in and spends 1 hour a day honing his skills. He is a more skilled player then player B. He however cannot invest the same amount of time and effort. What you are saying is that Player B should be rewarded for putting 1 hour into a game, while player A should simply have his hours waisted away because you feel they should be balanced off the bat? What you are saying is basically you want to pay someone for doing 1 hour of work the same amount as someone doing 4 hours. Games are based pretty heavily on real life senses of accomplishment. They reward your time and effort. Its why the gaming industry has moved towards it. Its an easy concept. Im sorry you feel that everyone should be rewarded instead of people that are actually willing to invest time and effort.

Ahaha. Okay, I am going to derive way too much enjoyment out of deconstructing this poorly constructed straw man to leave this post alone.

First off, no one said to make single heat sinks 'better' than doubles or even 'balanced'. The suggestion was to improve their heat cap such that they're situationally useful. Specifically, they would be able to increase your heat cap at the cost of heat dissipation and a LOT of weight (I suggested this be done among other balances changes like increasing the dissipation rate of all heatsinks and shrinking the overall heat cap, but let's not get off track). This would make them potentially useful on energy heavy assault 'Mechs like the awesome. The absolute majority of players and builds would still use DHS. You would still be rewarded for purchasing them regardless of which letter you're being assigned in a hypothetical scenario.

Second, the entire premise of your argument is flawed. " The more time and effort people sink into something, the more they should be rewarded with better stuff ". This is a concept largely seen in single player games where you become more powerful as the the game becomes progressively more difficult. However, you are not playing a rpg against scaled-difficulty npc adversaries. Following that train wreck of logic, the game would be improved greatly if they added the plasma rifle to the game, made it vastly superior to every existing weapon, and set it's cost at 50 million c-bills. Essentially, you are arguing for power creep.

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Im sorry you feel that everyone should be rewarded instead of people that are actually willing to invest time and effort.

Seriously, your attitude is downright Kuritan.
http://boards.straig...ad.php?t=700277

I love the part of your argument where I can't tell contextually which player has the expanding waist line. Good stuff, made me laugh.

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 28 February 2014 - 09:59 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 February 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

No. Not really. A few looked neat, but almost all of them were mediocre as designed, and I believe that was intentional to show that the tech was still not really understood (kind of like in WW I when take had overtaken tactics). But all in all, despite their looks, most were scarcely better than 3025 designs, and some, like the Hollander, realistically a lot worse in actual use. I would say that the Heavy and Assaults are where the "best" designs were featured, with the Bandersnatch (criminally underrated), Penetrator, Gunslinger and Cerberus leading the pack.

The upgrades did fix a lot of the initial production run oversights, like, adding DHS to mechs with ER PPCs, etc. (dtto 3050 Upgrade). That said, this guy


Is oddly enough, my fave light in the 3055 TRO.

But even the "Upgrade" art could do little to help most designs like the Scarabus, which need a total makeover.

LOL Aptly named the fireball!! Am I confusing 3058 Lights again?

[CygnusX7]

But you can put SHS in the legs!
Turret mech in water anyone? ...oh wait.. Water doesn't make enough of a difference to bother. \
Lulz.

Edited by CygnusX7, 28 February 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Purlana, on 28 February 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

But most of skill perks in space Marine are direct upgrades. In fact they have a heat sink upgrade for the Plasma Cannon.


http://spacemarine.w...lasma_Cannon%29

I addressed that in the very next paragraph of my post!

I, on 28 February 2014 - 03:50 AM, said:

I'll grant you that unlocking perks and perk slots do amount to direct upgrades, but that's more analogous to modules and mech efficiencies. Mech efficiencies are really the only traditional progression scheme we have in this game. SHS to DHS is not game progression, as no sane individual would actually run an SHS build to try to build up cash for the DHS upgrade.

Only the weapon perks are actually upgrades. None of the class perks are direct upgrades and each player gets access to at least one perk for each class right off the bat, though I think you had to unlock the Devastator and Assault classes before you got to play them. The weapon perk upgrades are more analogous to mech efficiencies, since you needed to get kills with a weapon to unlock perks for it.

And none of the class perks were 100% necessary to survival, like DHS is.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 28 February 2014 - 01:52 PM.

[Varent]

Still amused that every attack on my statement has done nothing to bring up the actual value of time. Time spent gaming and being rewarded for it. It doesn't matter if you feel it shouldn't be rewarded. Or awarded differently. This is how mwo has chosen to implement there time reward system. You play. You earn you upgrade. People are crying because it's costing them money and time and they don't want to invest that much to the game. This is the cost of a ftp game. Always has been in every model. The end.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Varent, on 28 February 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

Still amused that every attack on my statement has done nothing to bring up the actual value of time. Time spent gaming and being rewarded for it. It doesn't matter if you feel it shouldn't be rewarded. Or awarded differently. This is how mwo has chosen to implement there time reward system. You play. You earn you upgrade. People are crying because it's costing them money and time and they don't want to invest that much to the game. This is the cost of a ftp game. Always has been in every model. The end.

No one here has claimed that playtime should not be rewarded, so stop kicking that strawman and actually make a relevant argument. Gameplay is rewarded by C-Bills, XP, and enjoyment of the gameplay itself.

You're telling me that the right to pilot a mech that isn't DOA on the battlefield should be earned through grinding crappy trial builds? So if a new player decides he wants to avoid the F2P grind and spends at least 30 USD to purchase either a Yen-Lo-Wang, Fang, Flame, Ilya Muromets, Misery, or Boar's Head, he still has to earn the right to pilot his brand new mech because these Hero mechs don't come with DHS? What?

[Varent]

you say its a strawman when its simply a fact of gaming. There is nothing else to say here. You do realize that many of us here have indeed done this grind. It sucks. And once its over you feel a sense of accomplishment, you can look back and tell yourself that, "Damn that was hard." and you appreciate your mechs more because of it. This is the model of a pay to play game. Its time and effort versus having things handed to you on a silver platter. Also its the concept that gaming has been built off of for some time now. Reward systems where your efforts give you unlocks, trophies, etc. Im sorry, little timmy doesn't get a participation award in gaming. Thank god.

[Pjwned]

Varent, on 28 February 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

you say its a strawman when its simply a fact of gaming. There is nothing else to say here. You do realize that many of us here have indeed done this grind. It sucks. And once its over you feel a sense of accomplishment, you can look back and tell yourself that, "Damn that was hard." and you appreciate your mechs more because of it. This is the model of a pay to play game. Its time and effort versus having things handed to you on a silver platter. Also its the concept that gaming has been built off of for some time now. Reward systems where your efforts give you unlocks, trophies, etc. Im sorry, little timmy doesn't get a participation award in gaming. Thank god.

My experience with the grinding was (and continues to be) "wow that was tedious and annoying and it adds nothing to the game except grind for the sake of grind." It makes me not want to play as much, it makes me not want to pay any money beyond the small amount I spent for more mech bays, and it makes me not want to ever recommend this game to anybody else until it and other problems are at least alleviated or even fixed.

You also continue to throw strawmen around and avoid the argument by saying things like "HURR IT'S A FACT OF GAMING" and it's just absurd. I would suggest you just go play some garbage Korean MMO if you enjoy your grinding so much, Nexon has a number of games like that.

[Varent]

Im sad you feel that way. I believe you will have a hard time going through life if you feel no sense of accomplishment from hard work. You will probly find most games annoying in general.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Varent, on 28 February 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

you say its a strawman when its simply a fact of gaming. There is nothing else to say here. You do realize that many of us here have indeed done this grind. It sucks. And once its over you feel a sense of accomplishment, you can look back and tell yourself that, "Damn that was hard." and you appreciate your mechs more because of it. This is the model of a pay to play game. Its time and effort versus having things handed to you on a silver platter. Also its the concept that gaming has been built off of for some time now. Reward systems where your efforts give you unlocks, trophies, etc. Im sorry, little timmy doesn't get a participation award in gaming. Thank god.

I have 84 mechs. Every single one of them has DHS. At no point in the process did I think, "Man, I really earned those Double Heat Sinks!" or "I really earned the right to play a mech that doesn't overheat within 10 seconds of a fight starting!"

I really don't get it. No one loses out on SHS being useful. If buffing SHS turns out to make it more viable for certain builds, then it's only served to give you, the player more options!

Wouldn't it be nice to occasionally not have to buy doubles with the purchase of an SHS-equipped mech? To have some instances where a mech could totally be effective with SHS when using a particular build?

Varent, on 28 February 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

Im sad you feel that way. I believe you will have a hard time going through life if you feel no sense of accomplishment from hard work. You will probly find most games annoying in general.

If you consider 10-15 rounds of Mechwarrior Online to be "hard work", you will probably find most of life annoying in general.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 28 February 2014 - 03:21 PM.

[Pjwned]

Varent, on 28 February 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

Im sad you feel that way. I believe you will have a hard time going through life if you feel no sense of accomplishment from hard work. You will probly find most games annoying in general.

Grinding just so you can be on even ground with other players isn't hard work, you have some messed up priorities if you think it is. I also don't find most games annoying in general because if I did it wouldn't be a hobby of mine, you're just throwing out more strawmen by saying shit like that.