Jump to content

Pgi & Paul: How To Deliver 2/4 Of The Core Pillars Of Mwo

Balance

150 replies to this topic

#101 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:50 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 29 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.

I was wondering if you've reached any conclusions about the matter?

#102 pcunite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 July 2014 - 06:01 PM

I like some of the meat of the idea presented here. However, "no one builds an Atlas on the cheap". Why gimp it's electronics and detection? We need scouts to have true roles, yes, but don't try to "fix" problems with the game.

Active and passive radar, very needed. This way a scout can get some visuals and relay that back to the team without being detected itself.

Larger maps so scouts are truly needed.

Targeting and locking improvements so scouts are truly needed.

24v24 players so scouts are truly needed and there is actually time to be a commander. I never have time to give orders.

#103 Cest7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,781 posts
  • LocationMaple Ditch

Posted 30 July 2014 - 01:04 PM

Too little too late.

#104 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 01:32 PM

View PostCest7, on 30 July 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Too little too late.


Just curious, are you referring to OP or PGI?

#105 Cest7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,781 posts
  • LocationMaple Ditch

Posted 30 July 2014 - 01:41 PM

View PostRasc4l, on 30 July 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:


Just curious, are you referring to OP or PGI?

Both?

#106 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:17 AM

A lot of great ideas in here that would really breath some new life into the game, especially in combination with the new map. Waiting in the dark as a light while running passive radar for that knife in the back kill would be so much fun!

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 02 September 2014 - 06:18 AM.


#107 Tsig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 317 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:20 AM

Ike, why are you necroing old threads?

#108 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:22 AM

Because this thread is just that brilliant.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 02 September 2014 - 06:22 AM.


#109 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:24 AM

I want to add that this is a GREAT idea. I hope the team likes it and pushes it forward.

#110 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:25 AM

Too much effort for too little return.

Quite frankly I would be happy if they just reduced the detection range of heavies/assaults to 400-600m.

That accomplishes much the same thing in a much more simplified manner.

#111 Training Instructor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • LocationMoscow

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:43 AM

It's a good idea.

PGI rep commented on in 3.5 months ago. No word since.

I'm so surprised.

"Sorry bra, Paul said Nah."

#112 Marmon Rzohr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Warden
  • The Warden
  • 769 posts
  • Locationsomewhere in the universe, probably

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:44 AM

View PostRasc4l, on 29 May 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Finally, to give BAP the properties it deserves, BAP and Target Info Gathering (TIG) module should have the effects listed in Table 2. They should allow the scouting of vital information from the enemy mech but this takes time and should not happen at max range:


Posted Image

To show how this information can easily be shown, I made a quick mockup. Yellow dots are ammo:

Posted Image


EDIT: fixed image, typos, added a paragraph to explain what happens when mech inside your detection range has a lower sensor image than your range (meet halfway).


You made a very cool post and a nice breakdown. However, I would not allow detection of ammo placement in enemy mechs. First of all, there is no reason sensors should be able to detect this, second it would be slightly frustrating to play against IMHO.

#113 Malleus011

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 06:59 AM

Bump, because this, or something close to this, would really help the game.

#114 Chrithu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,601 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 02 September 2014 - 07:57 AM

View PostKhobai, on 02 September 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

Too much effort for too little return.

Quite frankly I would be happy if they just reduced the detection range of heavies/assaults to 400-600m.

That accomplishes much the same thing in a much more simplified manner.


That's the kind of thinking PGI applies to a lot of things and see what became of the game.

One example the Matchmaker: They knew Clan Mechs and CW would come but didn't have anything designed for those, when they started designing the Elo based Matchmaker (This in itself, taking into mind that the first two "deadlines" for CW were already passed by back then, is something that can hardly be understood). A lot of player comment already said back then that with Clans and CW on the horizon they might be better off thinking about a battle value based and probably even asymmetric match making approach, but back then the quick and easy solution was just going ahead do the Elo thing and be done. Now the Clan Mechs are here, CW is designed and they have to rewrite the matchmaking almost from scratch doing double work and are struggling to incorporate a balance as far as mech strength goes while maintaining the core of player Elo ranking. The outcome so far is a rule of 3/3/3/3 that they had to loosen up so wide that matches actually being setup according to that rule are a VERY rare occasion. And again the 3/3/3/3 thing was a seemingly easy to implement quickshot they took only to realize that it caused them more or at least the same amount of work as other solutions that were standing in the room (BATTLEVALUE ANYONE????). Taking Clan Mehcs into account it isn't even possible to use the 3/3/3/ rule and hope to get even matches because the CLan mechs are a bit stronger on the offense side of things, which again takes us to the Battle Value of a mech obviously being a solution that should be considered.

And just to add this one little thing: Abandoning the initial goal of setting up a role warfare in MWO (or maybe they just fail to get it working which isn't just as bad but still bad) isn't actually helping with getting 3/3/3/3 to work. Scouting does matter so little why should one ride a light mech, when he can take just any heavy and reign the battle field? Which brings us back to role warfare really needing some love from PGI for their own good.

Comming full circle back to the thread topic this little excourse might have shed some light on why it isn't a good a idea to always go for the easiest solution at hand for a particular aspect of the game to be improved. You simply have to keep everything else present and planned for the future in mind or you are just never done trying to fix things and getting them right.

Edited by Jason Parker, 02 September 2014 - 07:58 AM.


#115 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,601 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 02 September 2014 - 08:37 AM

But this would destroy the OP-ness of ECM. And by the way BAP has a larger role and effect than it is allowed to have in MWO. Especially against mechs with Passive running sensors.

#116 TLBFestus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,519 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 09:04 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 29 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.



An old cogent response from a Developer (that I somehow missed back then) that acknowledges a community suggestion, yet doesn't make any promises.

Has someone been going to "Community Relations 101" in his evenings?

Thank you for this example of a good reply to the Community BE. Now, can you get RB to go to night school with you?

Edited by TLBFestus, 02 September 2014 - 09:10 AM.


#117 Frost Lord

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 419 posts

Posted 07 September 2014 - 09:06 PM

it reminds me of heavy gear we really need something like this rather then more modules, sometimes the best selushions are the simple ones.

#118 Cerlin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 922 posts
  • LocationCalifornia or Japan

Posted 08 September 2014 - 06:58 AM

While this idea has been around a long time, the OP has articulated it in the most clear terms so far. I totally support. PGI please make this happen. You'd have ALL your roles done NOW! And it would not even be that hard.

#119 ThisMachineKillsFascists

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts

Posted 08 September 2014 - 07:19 AM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 29 May 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

From the radar mechanic POV, I do like the concept. It does not remove visual targeting from the mix, and VOIP player will still be able to manage targets effectively despite not having a lock. From an LRM POV it has merits. This model has been discussed a few time before as mentioned, and I'll see what the team thinks about it.

Are you admitting that Voip gives you and your team a great advantage?

If yes, then why doesnt this game have included voip yet? Didnt pgi announce Voip more than a year Ago? Omy

#120 S3dition

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,633 posts
  • LocationWashington, USA

Posted 10 September 2014 - 05:31 AM

Well thought out, constructive suggestion that gets two thumbs up from me. Would love to see it implemented to take the edges off ECM and move back towards role warfare.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users