795 replies to this topic

[Dark Jackal]

Koniving, on 07 April 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Though, I think the biggest failure in balancing was to take weapon damage, and assume every shot had to deal that damage. Instead of looking at tabletop for what it is; a simplified summary of 10 seconds. But, that problem was long before I even joined it and if I had anything to do with development back then, I'd hit someone on the head.

Maybe it's a tech thing, after all it's the Cry Engine. There is a complete lack of actual 'Mech based maneuvers no MW to date ever addressed, like climbing, CQC, picking up limbs, etc. From my perspective, 31st century walking machines are a bit blocky to me and should otherwise be a bit more fluid and nimble. And to top it off, there is no pilot interaction with the targeting and tracking systems on the 'Mech what so ever. So I'm curious to see how they will implement "advanced" things like Targeting computers at clan launch as I recall a very neat Masakari config with Targeting Computers on it (ALT C).

The game feels very much like a FPS-ish-Sim.

[Roland]

Quote

Before pilot skills, the game was very fair, very balanced-ish.
Damaged arm actuators screwed with horizontal or vertical aiming (very, very briefly with my time in it). Damaged leg actuators caused you to turn toward the direction of your damaged leg requiring frequent course corrections.

Eh.. I don't think that stuff ever actually happened in game, did it? I don't recall the actuator damage ever doing anything, even in closed beta.

If that stuff WAS in there, and they removed it, then that's yet another terrible ******* decision on the part of some jackass at PGI. Because it was something that we suggested multiple times, and never had a response on... the idea that it DID exist, and they removed it, is kind of mind blowing (and yet somehow totally expected).

Likewise, with things like arm mobility.. back in closed beta, the game was really much more complex in terms of controls than it is now.... the arm-lock capability they added in really dumbed down the whole control scheme, and added significantly to the convergence issues in the game. But, like all bad decisions by PGI, I doubt they'll ever reverse that one.

Quote

But what's more... texture quality. Clarity of vision. The glow.

While the glow was indeed cool, they also had that bug with HDR lighting which made it such that certain mechs, like the catapult, where the glow just kept building and eventually it looked like you were staring into the sun, and couldn't see anything else.

[Eglar]

Roland, on 07 April 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

You must not read Redit much, because it's pretty much non-stop hate on PGI.

http://www.reddit.co...ly_exploitable/

just a comparison. surprised? you shouldn't be.

[Roadbeer]

Eglar, on 07 April 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

http://www.reddit.co...ly_exploitable/

just a comparison. surprised? you shouldn't be.

I want to know who's hijacking my shit and not crediting the OP.

Also, reddit is the lowest form of communication since Q-Link on the Commodore64

Edited by Roadbeer, 07 April 2014 - 11:10 AM.

[Roland]

Eglar, on 07 April 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

http://www.reddit.co...ly_exploitable/

just a comparison. surprised? you shouldn't be.

Wow you found one that wasn't bashing PGI.
Check out the overall set of threads on MWO.

[Davers]

What I remember most about CB was the optimism. Everyone thought the game was just going to get better and better. It was going to fulfil everything we had wanted. CW was always right around the corner. Why, it might be in the next patch!

To say things have changed would be an understatement.

[Mystere]

Davers, on 07 April 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

What I remember most about CB was the optimism. Everyone thought the game was just going to get better and better. It was going to fulfil everything we had wanted. CW was always right around the corner. Why, it might be in the next patch!

To say things have changed would be an understatement.

The difference between CB and now is that the rabble were confined to the opposite side of the fence.

[Eglar]

Roland, on 07 April 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Wow you found one that wasn't bashing PGI.
Check out the overall set of threads on MWO.

Guess that's why I advertised on outreachHPG. This thread went totally offtopic at some point and I was pointing it out.

[Roadbeer]

Mystere, on 07 April 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

The difference between CB and now is that the rabble were confined to the opposite side of the fence.

:Bites his tongue about his feeling how OB destroyed this game:

Eglar, on 07 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Guess that's why I advertised on outreachHPG. This thread went totally offtopic at some point and I was pointing it out.

Give it time, that thread is only a couple hours old, and this is just over a day.

[Koniving]

Gasoline, on 07 April 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

I would back your game so hard... If only one could get the license...

Regarding your scenario. I have soooo many ideas for planetary conquest campaigns...

Spoiler

Invader:
1) secure dropship site, establish forward base
2) raid supply depot and convoys
3) assault HPG/comm links/important structures/airfields
4) secure capitol city
5) assault planetary garrison

Defender:
1) destroy forward base/mobile command vehicle/dropship
2) defend supply lines
3) defend comm links/HPG/important structures
4) defend capitol
5) defend garrison

Invaders have limited supply (only the dropship) until they successfully raided enemy supply lines, no air support and no artillery (other than the dropship support while defending). As soon as a critical structure is captured they have support (HPG - call for reinforcements, airbase - air strikes, weapons facilities - cheaper rearm, mech facilities - cheaper repair/purchase, etc...). Meh... I just couldn't resist.

This might be such a wonderful game... If only there would exist something like CW...

There was speak of one of the idea that PGI had for 'dropship mode' and Planetary Assault.
One of them was in Brian's own words: "each player would choose up to 4 mechs" "with limited tonnage" and conduct "a series of matches to determine control over the planet."
Then, there is what Paul has said more than once (this is paraphrased) : "We want to do a one-sided assault mode" "similar to 'Rush' on Battlefield 3" "where you have access to part of the map, with one side defending and the other attacking" "Either the attacking force is defeated, or the attacking force succeeds and the defense falls back for the attacking team to proceed to the next objective."

I sort of like that idea, but 1) the maps are not made for it and many would need to be redesigned entirely and enlarged and 2) all of the mechs are too fast for this style of play. 3) Defense needs reinforcement waves. And there needs to multiple objectives, turrets. And after that, offense definitely needs reinforcement waves too.

Bryan's idea is pretty realistic to MWO's current and flawed design. Paul's idea is better in my opinion, but currently impossible.

I like your ideas too, Gasoline. It reminds me a lot of Operation Damocles from MW3. If we had random map generation combined with staged maps, that would be fantastic. Example using Bryan's 4 match system. Random river forest (drop site). Random river farmland (possibly a supply depot here). Random ocean battle (germanium and oil drilling platforms of interest). River City (attacker starting position from the ocean, beyond the current map border and 'rising' from the water. Capitol building with statues in front. Shipping port. Air field is evacuating diplomats. Storage unit under airfield).

Voila!
It's a shame that the game's server architecture makes random map generation too expensive an endeavor to be viable. The server requires its own special version of each map.

(What Gasoline is referring to is this on page 6. A community Warfare scenario with weight limits based on dropships available, reinforcements, alterable player counts in a group, planetary garrison, attack and defense.)

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 12:51 PM.

[Artgathan]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

:Bites his tongue about his feeling how OB destroyed this game:

I don't think it was necessarily OB. IMO, the fact that the devs slowly became less communicative about their intentions over time (and this happened to coincide primarily with OB and the fact that they could no longer keep up with the volume of the player input coming through) is what has caused a lot of the hurt feelings amongst the player base (particularly amongst the long-term players such as yourself).

That, coupled with a few decisions (Limits of groups, 3PV, Consumables, Ghost Heat) that felt like betrayals to some of the die-hard fans (regardless of the actual motivations that PGI had for including these features), drove a wedge between the players and the devs.

There's a lot of stuff I miss from CB (ammo explosions due to heat, slow pace of combat, knockdowns, being able to play with 7 friends), but I still have fun in MW:O, and I'll keep playing it for the foreseeable future. That said, I do have some concerns about the direction of the game at the moment.

So that this post is not totally off base: I agree that the 3/3/3/3 matchmaking will be easier to abuse than the current system. Perhaps not as easy as you [Roadbeer] claim in the OP (the large number of players in the queue will break the syncers up somewhat), but most likely easier than the current system.

[Roadbeer]

Artgathan, on 07 April 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

So that this post is not totally off base: I agree that the 3/3/3/3 matchmaking will be easier to abuse than the current system. Perhaps not as easy as you [Roadbeer] claim in the OP (the large number of players in the queue will break the syncers up somewhat), but most likely easier than the current system.

Oh, I don't disagree with all. I'm not saying that it's going to have a 100% success rate, just that the chances of occurrence are going to drastically increase.
I'll save you the trouble of reading the 12 pages, and somewhere in here I clarified my point that once you start to expose layers of the matchmaking system, you make it easier to game, or manipulate.

A good example of this, last night after a couple probe drops, we were able to determine that Conquest was the least populated queue. From that point we were able to successfully sync on the same team on 4 consecutive drops. Not to say that this is the norm by any means, in fact it was almost an anomaly, but regardless, we were able to pull it off.

That was just being able to "game" one parameter of the Matchmaker, now that we are having 2 more unveiled. Knowing the drop composition that MM is going to look for, and being able to guesstimate your way into one of the 3 buckets. The odds of successful syncs are going to go up. Something that the new Launch Module was supposed to inhibit.

[no one]

Craig Steele, on 07 April 2014 - 03:41 AM, said:

LOL, pretty sure I am no one's alt

That's weird, I'm pretty sure you're not.

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

. . .
If 3/3/3/3 is just for random public matches, mkay, sure, whatever. But for Community Warfare, don't take away my dropships and logistics.

This is beautiful. You'd have to limit the number of drop-ship drops per planet per time frame based on the number of jumps from a controlled system, but it could definitely work.

Koniving, on 06 April 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

Btw does anyone have an online attainable resource for how Battletech handles hand-equipped weaponry like the Thunderbolt's 6 and 12 ton weapon mounts, melee weapons, and Rifles?

I don't think the Thunderbolt uses true "carried" weapons. TacOps and Max Tech should cover hand-held "jettison capable" weapons in detail.
Otherwise, here's a thread on it -
http://bg.battletech...p?topic=10376.0

[Trauglodyte]

Roadbeer, on 06 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Ok, I've said this in a couple other threads, but I figured I might as well put it up front, and also create a new topic so it's easy for me to find when the inevitable "I told you so" links need to come around.

Lets take what we know, and explain how easy it's going to be to game the system.

1.Each team with have 3 of each weight class, I don't think I really need to explain what that means.
2. Each player will reside in an Elo "bucket" for each weight class, and there are 3 buckets.


So, because my friends and I all play together, it's safe to assume that for the most part, we'll reside in the same bucket, and with the stats page, it'll be pretty safe to assume which 'bucket' we reside in for each weight class. It's not an exact science, but with a little guesstimating, it should be fairly easy to accomplish.

So, with that information, lets say I have 6 other friends on, making a 'group' of 7.

Knowing that each team will only have one group per side on it, we'll form a 4 player group leaving the other 3 as "solos".

The 4 player group will take maximum weight, because well, why would we want to give that firepower to PUGs. So the group will be 3A and 1H.

The "solos" will now take whatever mech they want, though it'll be safe to assume that they'll take the maximum weight still open, so "Solo" 1 & 2 bring heavy and "Solo" 3 will bring a medium or light.

Because Matchmaker is now pulling from weight classes, and with everyone launching at once, The group will be assigned to a match, and with MM looking to fill the remaining weight slots, and with our "solo" players meeting that criteria, I'd say the odds are pretty good that our "solos" will be filling those slots. At least, I give this a higher degree of probability than we have right now.

So, what does all of this mean?
The example I used was just with 7 people, the more people you have, the odds of a successful sync actually go up, ultimately, in the interest of making 'fairer' matches, they've actually created a system that is infinitely easier to game.

Like I said, it'll take a little guesstimating and trial and error at first, but I bet by the end of the second week, seeing 10 player "premades" in the public queue is going to be quite common.

Just leaving this here for posterity, do with it as you will.


Taken from later in this thread...

Just wanted to clear up my position on all this

I'm a little late to the conversation but here is my view on things:

- Sync dropping for the sake of playing with friends is ok. Doing it to be l33t c00l makes you a douche. 12 mans exist for the later part is under utilized because no-skill ******* don't want competition, they want PUG stomping pats on the back.

- Mechs of all weight classes exist and enforcing their use is a fine way of making sure that they're played. It isn't elegant and it will be gamed but the % of players doing so won't be drastic.

Personally, I don't think anything that PGI does will ever be perfect. It is up to us to police things and up to PGI to enforce some semblance of law prohibiting PUG stomping. If they don't, CW (if it ever releases) will just be a waste.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

What would happen if everyone refused to play anything but Assaults and Heavies when they patched in 3 3 3 3 ?

[Trauglodyte]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 07 April 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

What would happen if everyone refused to play anything but Assaults and Heavies when they patched in 3 3 3 3 ?

The same thing that is going to happen when they release this? Launch times are going to take forever. Without multi-mech queueing, this isn't going to go well.

[Koniving]

no one, on 07 April 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

This is beautiful. You'd have to limit the number of drop-ship drops per planet per time frame based on the number of jumps from a controlled system, but it could definitely work.
---------
I don't think the Thunderbolt uses true "carried" weapons. TacOps and Max Tech should cover hand-held "jettison capable" weapons in detail.
Otherwise, here's a thread on it -
http://bg.battletech...p?topic=10376.0

(Edit: Link put in No One's quote to which post No One is referring to on the first part.)

I agree it would require limits on how many dropships could attack a planet at once.
(I did picture for that scenario a limit of one dropship per player group. Team B, later Team E, started with a group of 9 players and no reserves. Later on in the 'day', they mustered 2 waves of commandos and 2 reserve spiders with the addition of 3 more players to their group and came back for vengeance. In the example that team had to wait their turn. Honestly with having to get through a gate by either destroying it or taking over the controls, the turrets, etc. before facing the 3 remaining Zhizhu players with their 4 left-over mechs I did picture Team E losing a fair amount of their forces. I mean seriously rushing a fortified position with multiple gates and turrets.)

But yeah. Definitely need to limit how frequently attacks could be made. I pictured Zhizhu and Steiner compete early morning. Zhizhu takes the planet. Zhizhu begins fortifying it and queues in reinforcements. Kurita wanted some of the action before the fortifications are done. Kurita is pushed back but Zhizhu lost some stuff. With a base there salvaging mechs became possible. Zhizhu establishes turrets. By evening Steiner begins its two dropship onslaught.

Far as the carried weapons, someone told me that Thunderbolts had two types of carried weapons. A 6 ton variety (1 ton of ammo, half ton armor, small weapons) and a 12 ton variety (this one I do remember well. LRM-20, 1 ton armor, 1 ton ammo carried within but could use ammo stored in the mech too). It got me quite curious. Still interested in the actual rulebook, but from that forum there's specific rules within Tactical Operations so I'll check that PDF in a bit.

Also found custom rules for shields. Example, something like the Centurion's shield could add something like a ton of armor (but weighs said ton + a bit more) and consumes a slot. A ton of armor in MWO is 32 points (36 if Ferro). That'd be like having an extra arm with how easily they are taken out on Centurions. Said shield can be employed to take damage if no weapons within said arm are in use with a roll.

So on MWO, said shield might have a key to use to bring it in front of you or the player might use the age-old Centurion Shield trick (twist 45 to 50 degrees right to bring shield in front of you. Aim with your arm over or under the shield by aiming 45 to 50 degrees left. Fire LRMs and cannon until you get close or the shield is gone, then center torso and fire lasers and cannon.)

Edited by Koniving, 07 April 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[Ordellus]

Roadbeer, on 06 April 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Ok, I've said this in a couple other threads, but I figured I might as well put it up front, and also create a new topic so it's easy for me to find when the inevitable "I told you so" links need to come around.

Lets take what we know, and explain how easy it's going to be to game the system.

1.Each team with have 3 of each weight class, I don't think I really need to explain what that means.
2. Each player will reside in an Elo "bucket" for each weight class, and there are 3 buckets.


So, because my friends and I all play together, it's safe to assume that for the most part, we'll reside in the same bucket, and with the stats page, it'll be pretty safe to assume which 'bucket' we reside in for each weight class. It's not an exact science, but with a little guesstimating, it should be fairly easy to accomplish.

So, with that information, lets say I have 6 other friends on, making a 'group' of 7.

Knowing that each team will only have one group per side on it, we'll form a 4 player group leaving the other 3 as "solos".

The 4 player group will take maximum weight, because well, why would we want to give that firepower to PUGs. So the group will be 3A and 1H.

The "solos" will now take whatever mech they want, though it'll be safe to assume that they'll take the maximum weight still open, so "Solo" 1 & 2 bring heavy and "Solo" 3 will bring a medium or light.

Because Matchmaker is now pulling from weight classes, and with everyone launching at once, The group will be assigned to a match, and with MM looking to fill the remaining weight slots, and with our "solo" players meeting that criteria, I'd say the odds are pretty good that our "solos" will be filling those slots. At least, I give this a higher degree of probability than we have right now.

So, what does all of this mean?
The example I used was just with 7 people, the more people you have, the odds of a successful sync actually go up, ultimately, in the interest of making 'fairer' matches, they've actually created a system that is infinitely easier to game.

Like I said, it'll take a little guesstimating and trial and error at first, but I bet by the end of the second week, seeing 10 player "premades" in the public queue is going to be quite common.

Just leaving this here for posterity, do with it as you will.


Taken from later in this thread...

Just wanted to clear up my position on all this

You're just now figuring out that this game is designed around being an easy system for douche bags to abuse?

[Roadbeer]

Ordellus, on 07 April 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

You're just now figuring out that this game is designed around being an easy difficult system for douche bags to abuse people to have to create workarounds just to be able to play with their friends?

Fixed that for you.

[Trauglodyte]

Roadbeer, on 07 April 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

Fixed that for you.

You did fix that Roady but you know, as well as the rest of us, that the douche bag legions that want nothing more than the ego pumping in game accolades of stomping PUGs will push this to no end. While you're not on my friends list (why not???), if you were and we wanted to play together as a group but couldn't, I'd hop in TS/Vent/Mumble and attempt to sync drop just like I do now with my CI clan mates. That is us trying to play together as friends cause the point is companionship and fun. But, there are too many folks out there that are gonna screw this up for everyone.

Also, the down side to this system is that it is going to strain the match finding time. If we don't get some sort of multi-mech queueing option, we're going to all end up like the top ELO teams montsh ago (ie, they try and fail to find matches due to time outs).