114 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Coolant, on 06 July 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Once again, a thread where the OP misuses the term meta gaming:

from Wikipedia:
Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

Doesn't apply to your post...

Thank you for quoting part of the Wiki to me.

So tell me, as what, would you refer to the gaming aspect that is outside the design intentions of the game? (I would like to think that PGi did not design the game to boil down to 3 weapons...and certainly not in a pogostick match of 2-3 out of over a hundred variants.)

Edited by Livewyr, 06 July 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Aresye]

Livewyr, on 06 July 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Thank you for quoting part of the Wiki to me.

So tell me, as what, would you refer to the gaming aspect that is outside the design intentions of the game? (I would like to think that PGi did not design the game to boil down to 3 weapons...and certainly not in a pogostick match of 2-3 out of over a hundred variants.)

Macros would fit the definition Coolant quoted. They're an external factor that's used to compliment many meta builds.

[Lightfoot]

Make LRMs work again and you won't see so many poptarts... alive anyway. Radar Dep makes poptarts immune to LRMs so that's really all anyone needs to do to avoid ever being hit by LRMs. Welcome to the new bigger Meta.

[Karamarka]

Lightfoot, on 06 July 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Make LRMs work again and you won't see so many poptarts... alive anyway. Radar Dep makes poptarts immune to LRMs so that's really all anyone needs to do to avoid ever being hit by LRMs. Welcome to the new bigger Meta.

PUGS and solo queue would get demolished by LRM if that was the case, it's already super powerful - you don't need LoS like MW4

[Livewyr]

Karamarka, on 06 July 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

PUGS and solo queue would get demolished by LRM if that was the case, it's already super powerful - you don't need LoS like MW4

When did you need LoS in MW4?i I do not remember needing LoS.. just had to be within range of your radar. (If they had ECM, it got cut to 500, your BAP would boost it to 600)

[Karamarka]

Livewyr, on 06 July 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

When did you need LoS in MW4?i I do not remember needing LoS.. just had to be within range of your radar. (If they had ECM, it got cut to 500, your BAP would boost it to 600)

I swear you had to hold your reticule over the target to get a lock and fire, as in visually.

*No indirect fire.

Edited by Karamarka, 06 July 2014 - 07:38 PM.

[Aresye]

Karamarka, on 06 July 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

I swear you had to hold your reticule over the target to get a lock and fire, as in visually.

*No indirect fire.

Yeah for MW4 your cursor had to be on the mech itself.

[Livewyr]

Aresye, on 06 July 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Yeah for MW4 your cursor had to be on the mech itself.

Perhaps I stand corrected, I just remember firing it over hills consistently.. (perhaps I had a hacked client!)

[Sandslice]

Livewyr, on 06 July 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Thank you for quoting part of the Wiki to me.

So tell me, as what, would you refer to the gaming aspect that is outside the design intentions of the game? (I would like to think that PGi did not design the game to boil down to 3 weapons...and certainly not in a pogostick match of 2-3 out of over a hundred variants.)

To draw a comparison to another game: I don't think it was Capcom's intention for Marvel vs. Capcom 2 to have ~6 competitive characters out of 56. However, it happened. That's what meta does; the players find optimals and lean toward them.

[stjobe]

Sandslice, on 07 July 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

To draw a comparison to another game: I don't think it was Capcom's intention for Marvel vs. Capcom 2 to have ~6 competitive characters out of 56. However, it happened. That's what meta does; the players find optimals and lean toward them.

And if Marvel vs Capcom 2 had been under active development like MWO is, Capcom could have done something to make the other 50 characters viable again.

I think that's what's asked for here; that PGI, who are actively developing the game, take measures to make more 'mechs, more weapons, and more tactics viable.

[Pht]

Livewyr, on 06 July 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Since what I am reading does not seem to answer my questions..

Odd. I thought I answered your questions quite directly.

Quote

(And Yes, I know MWO ECM does not fit Lore/BT/TT, that is why I called it MWO ECM instead of Guardian- but sadly I think it is here to stay.)

Indeed. That ship (and others) sailed a long time ago, apparently.

Staying faithful to an already established standard, regardless of how popular, well established, or loved that standard may be, just doesn't seem to be in vogue at all these days. People seem to think the only way to put their stamp on an established thing is to alter it; instead of working where there's room left to work with that standard without altering it. Let's not even discuss how people mangle truth... :s

Quote

Could you tell me how you would implement the firing system in MWO?

One that would:

Be able to maintain a damage spread on an Assault mech & a damage spread on a light mech.. while being able to *hit* both. (And in the case of both- being able to hit profile shots.) The size of a Spider is vastly different than the size of an Atlas. (What is Whole Mech for a Spider, is CT for an Atlas)

Sure. First, the basic gameplay mechanics of the firing system, than I'll tell you how they specifically handle the size difference question you've asked... because without understanding the basic mechanics, the specific answer won't make any sense.

----

Add the two following mechanics to MWO:

"Can a mech even hit the overall target it's pilot is tracking with the reticule given x conditions" - the "hit/no hit"

and:

"If a 'Mech can hit the overall target under the given conditions, WHAT parts of that overall target get hit (again, given the conditions)." - the HLTs.

The first is simple "hit/no hit" versus the overall unit targeted. The second is "if targeted unit is hit, what specific part of target are hit."

These two mechanics are done for each weapon that is fired individually.

For weapons in a group fired all at once, the entire fired group uses the "hit/no hit" combat capability of the least capable weapon of the group to determine "hit/no hit" for the entire group. IF the group hits; than each single weapon is put through the appropriate HLT on an individual basis.

The "given conditions" determine how hard or easy the "hit/no hit" is, and they determine which HLT gets used. It is the pilot's skill at tracking with the reticule and skill at making combat choices and choices in the mechlab that determine what the VAST majority of the "given conditions" are.

----

Now for your specific question.

The "hit/no hit" vs the overall unit targeted is the mechanic that directly handles size modifiers (the spider profile issue you mentioned).

And, actually, the spider's size, even in profile, isn't small enough to give a battlemech problems bringing weapons to bear on it. The spider has no associated "hit/no hit" modifiers, positive or negative, related to it's size. Yes, I did go look it up, no, this is not me pulling an arbitrary answer out of my hat.

With everything else being equal except size, as long as a player has the skill to keep the reticule over a spider; they have an equal chance to hit the spider as it has of hitting them.

Just so you know, for example, the Vulcan:

...Battlemech is an example of a 'Mech that is small enough in profile to give other 'Mechs a hard time hitting it. Which means that a BattleMech is more combat-capable than it's pilot in many ways, sort of like how most rifles are capable of more accuracy than the vast majority of their users.

The sizes of battlemechs relative to each other and the surrounding environment is actually one of the more obscure and harder things to pin down in the lore, believe it or not. Not even the tabletop minis are made to scale. I believe that's why the sizes of the 'mechs in every MechWarrior video game have been chosen in an almost arbitrary manner. Thankfully, using the HLT's and the hit/no hit would nearly completely fix the game play problems this causes.

----

Adding those two mechanics and their associated "given condition" variables would allow using the lore combat related numbers (weapons stats, heat, mech armor, etc); but more importantly it would give the developers predictable gaming outcomes without the need for watching the statistics and hoping they interpret them right every time a new trend happens, every time they add a new weapon, or every time they tweak something in the game related to combat... and it would do this without removing player skill and choice making as THE determining factor of success.

MWO has some (but not all) of the various *weapons* capabilities, mwo has the 'Mech's manuverability capabilities, and it has modelled the way a 'mech's profile affects it's combat ability... but it doesn't have any of the BattleMech's combat capabilities modelled.

Edited by Pht, 13 July 2014 - 08:11 AM.

[Livewyr]

You stated: "x conditions" what are "x conditions?"

(Also- if I understand you correctly, and the mechanics calculate hit/no hit every time you put your reticle over a mech, that is going to be extremely resource heavy.)

[Mcgral18]

Livewyr, on 13 July 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

You stated: "x conditions" what are "x conditions?"

(Also- if I understand you correctly, and the mechanics calculate hit/no hit every time you put your reticle over a mech, that is going to be extremely resource heavy.)

Yeah...you can already reliably crash the server with a MG+Laser brawl.

Adding more calculations would make that worse.

[Blacksoul1987]

Mcgral18, on 13 July 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Yeah...you can already reliably crash the server with a MG+Laser brawl.

Adding more calculations would make that worse.

pretty much the prime reason we can't have Homeless Bill's firing solution.

[Pht]

Livewyr, on 13 July 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

You stated: "x conditions" what are "x conditions?"

What range is your target at, what are you doing with your 'mech when you pull the trigger ... (running, standing still, overheating like mad, running cool, trying to make a snap shot, jumping or not when firing, etc) and what is your target doing when you pull the trigger ... running? standing still? Immobile, thus allowing you to far more easily hit specific parts? etc.

Quote

(Also- if I understand you correctly, and the mechanics calculate hit/no hit every time you put your reticle over a mech, that is going to be extremely resource heavy.)

It's not.

In fact, a ti-82 calculator can do it: http://www.pryderock...l_games.php#BT2

Specifically, the servers already collect all of the information needed, AFAIK. The rest is simply an if/than database in the server (which, as I understand it, would run obscenely fast) and simple addition never adding up to even three digits (100) and a choice from 12 locations on a table, representing a 'Mech's locations. Or if they could secure it, it could be put into the client end.... or split it between the pair.

Mcgral18, on 13 July 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Yeah...you can already reliably crash the server with a MG+Laser brawl.

Adding more calculations would make that worse.

It wouldn't require any more network load; as I said, the server probably already knows everything it would need to know in order to do it.

The back-end speculation is interesting, I'll own that, but I don't think the bean-counters and backers would allow PGI to take a mulligan on the game at this level any more. PGI likely wouldn't be allowed to change it even if they wanted to, I suspect.

Edited by Pht, 16 July 2014 - 05:18 AM.