36 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

So good balance/design in a vidya game is only good for eSports.....lolwut

I suggest you improve your reading comprehension then. I want a war game to have some basis on reality.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Sig In Question, on 13 September 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

Stop making arguments on how to balance things based on how some thing or another supposedly works in real life, this is a video game.

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:35 PM, said:

As for your sig, I (obviously) disagree with that as well. I came here for a "futuristic" war game, not eSport.

My reading comprehension is fine, you made the flawed leap that if we aren't balancing to make it a war sim, it must be because we want to balance as though it were an eSport. Or maybe you were just trying to setup a strawman, either way...

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 September 2014 - 08:57 PM.

[Nightmare1]

No more changes! They have been nerfed enough already.

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

I suggest you improve your reading comprehension then. I want a war game to have some basis on reality.

It seems like you're saying that such a change would suddenly throw away its basis on reality, that you think such a change is even any more unrealistic (which, I don't), and that you don't care about its impact on the balance of the game because you seem to have some vehement distaste for eSports even though improving the game's balance is not necessarily only in the name of eSports and in fact almost never is.

[Mystere]

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

My reading comprehension is fine, you made the flawed leap that if we aren't balancing to make it a war sim, it must be because we want to balance as though it were an eSport.

No it is not from where I am sitting. I was stating an opinion in relation Pjwned's sig: I do not necessarily want a war game to be balanced.

As such, it is you who made the flawed leap.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

As for your sig, I (obviously) disagree with that as well. I came here for a "futuristic" war game, not eSport.

Again, my comprehension is fine, the important part is bolded and italicized for emphasis.
Had you left that singular part off, there would have been no problem with your statement, but you didn't.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 September 2014 - 09:01 PM.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

It seems like you're saying that such a change would suddenly throw away its basis on reality, that you think such a change is even any more unrealistic (which, I don't), and that you don't care about its impact on the balance of the game because you seem to have some vehement distaste for eSports even though improving the game's balance is not necessarily only in the name of eSports and in fact almost never is.

I think I will just state things as clearly as possible. I want artillery in MWO to act like real life artillery that hits any armored vehicle -- said vehicle is obliterated -- because <see video>.

I hope that is clear enough.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

Had you left that singular part off, there would have been no problem with your statement, but you didn't.

I intentionally put that in to imply that I want an eSport game to be balanced, but not necessarily a war game.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Or maybe you were just trying to setup a strawman, either way...

No strawman was set up. I just simply like what I like with regard to video games.

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 08:59 PM, said:

No it is not from where I am sitting. I was stating an opinion in relation Pjwned's sig: I do not necessarily want a war game to be balanced.

As such, it is you who made the flawed leap.

I can't believe that you're saying somebody else made a flawed leap when you openly state that you don't want a competitive game to be balanced, and whether or not you like it this game is competitive.

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

I think I will just state things as clearly as possible. I want artillery in MWO to act like real life artillery that hits any armored vehicle -- said vehicle is obliterated -- because <see video>.

I hope that is clear enough.

I don't understand why you're comparing armored vehicles to colossal mechs, which are already not realistic, and then complaining that a 50+ ton mech isn't completely obliterated when your comparison target (read: tanks, which are over a millenium old compared to MWO Battletech times and still decades old today) is for something that's smaller than a damn Locust.

Edited by Pjwned, 13 September 2014 - 09:20 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

I intentionally put that in to imply that I want an eSport game to be balanced, but not necessarily a war game.

No strawman was set up. I just simply like what I like with regard to video games.

Im gonna clear something up,artillery strikes and air strikes are not imbalanced in the team aspect. Each team can bring the same amount and the same rules apply.

The problems lie in two other areas, only one of which is balance related.
Consumable balance is where the balance issue is, while the limitation to one strike was good, the fact that the limitation had to be added in the first place is bad. Any sort of arbitrary limitation like that is not to add flavor (hardpoints are arbitrary limitations, but they have a purpose outside of balance) is bad. So this should lead one to realize at least in the scope of consumables, strikes are OP.

The second issue is immersion/design. Does the fact that these can one shot a player add to the immersion AND fit within the design goals of the game. Considering this is meant to be a thinking man's game (ergo, slower pace, piloting mistakes are more forgiving but tactical mistakes are not), having the ability to one shot players even at 2km out, simply because this is a war game is silly. That is if you want a community to grow outside you, Joseph Mallen, and select few others. To me, this is the biggest issue with strikes.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 September 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[Mystere]

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

Im gonna clear something up,artillery strikes and air strikes are not imbalanced in the team aspect. Each team can bring the same amount and the same rules apply.

I am glad you said that, because as far as I am concerned, that kind of balance is good enough for me as far as artillery is concerned.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

The problems lie in two other areas, only one of which is balance related.
Consumable balance is where the balance issue is, while the limitation to one strike was good, the fact that the limitation had to be added in the first place is bad. Any sort of arbitrary limitation like that is not to add flavor (hardpoints are arbitrary limitations, but they have a purpose outside of balance) is bad. So this should lead one to realize at least in the scope of consumables, strikes are OP.

I have an alternative view. Strikes were limited to one per player as a pacification measure. They probably figured doing so would silence the noisy ones while at the same time have minimal risk of creating even more anger. If so, they made a good call.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

The second issue is immersion/design. Does the fact that these can one shot a player add to the immersion AND fit within the design goals of the game.

I say "yes" to both.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

Considering this is meant to be a thinking man's game (ergo, slower pace, piloting mistakes are more forgiving but tactical mistakes are not), having the ability to one shot players even at 2km out, simply because this is a war game is silly. That is if you want a community to grow outside you, Joseph Mallen, and select few others. To me, this is the biggest issue with strikes.

Alternatively, in a so-called "thinking man's game", if you know artillery has a probability of killing you, then you watch out for the red smoke and weigh the risks of any actions you might want to do then.

And just to drive my point, for the last few days, I have decided to ignore the red smoke while leveling my Timber Wolf because I think the risk of death or heavy damage can be ignored. So far, I have been right.

I would not do the same in my spider or Ember, though.

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

Alternatively, in a so-called "thinking man's game", if you know artillery has a probability of killing you, then you watch out for the red smoke and weigh the risks of any actions you might want to do then.

I underlined the important part, this is where you get into trouble, because I could easily say that only people who don't know how to use artillery place it to where you either can see it or allows for time to react once you do. Which is a huge problem for something that can one shot you. Were this designed as a respawn type game, this would be much less of an issue, but it is not.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 September 2014 - 09:46 PM.

[Pjwned]

WM Quicksilver, on 13 September 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

I underlined the important part, this is where you get into trouble, because I could easily say that only people who don't know how to use artillery place it to where you either can see it or allows for time to react once you do. Which is a huge problem for something that can one shot you. Were this designed as a respawn type game, this would be much less of an issue, but it is not.

This particular issue would be solved by giving artillery strikes a cone of fire.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

This particular issue would be solved by giving artillery strikes a cone of fire.

Unfortunately, massed artillery doesn't really work that way. That would probably be more appropriate for air strikes (if the cones were narrow enough).

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

Unfortunately, massed artillery doesn't really work that way.

That's not really how it works exactly in real life, yeah, but if artillery wasn't changed to be 20 shells for 20 damage each (or, as a concession, 16 shells for 25 damage each) then that would be an acceptable alternative even if it could still cause instant death cockpit shots which I find to be incredibly lame from a consumable item usable at infinite range

Quote

That would probably be more appropriate for air strikes (if the cones were narrow enough).

Air strikes basically fire in a straight line so that's already practically a very narrow cone.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

That's not really how it works exactly in real life, yeah, but if artillery wasn't changed to be 20 shells for 20 damage each (or, as a concession, 16 shells for 25 damage each) then that would be an acceptable alternative even if it could still cause instant death cockpit shots which I find to be incredibly lame from a consumable item usable at infinite range

Frankly, I'd rather that the artillery mechanic be changed while keeping the damage the same:

• require TAG
  
• require artillery adjusting/aiming prior to fire-for-effect

Additionally, instead of changing artillery, why not add more useful modules like:

• smoke rounds - for wide-area cover, for blinding the enemy
  
• airbursts - increased chance of damage on upper half of mech
  
• mines/cluster bombs - increased chance of damage on lower have of mech, area denial
  
• sticky incendiaries - massive heat induced on enemy

Pjwned, on 13 September 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

Air strikes basically fire in a straight line so that's already practically a very narrow cone.

Truth be told, I have a more radical idea with regard to air strikes.

To make air strikes have a totally different flavor from artillery, I'd prefer the former to deliver cluster munitions. As such, they will have much more bomblets but less damage per ( ). Then we can have the submunitions spread out in a cone of around 10-20 degrees. Alternatively, following the dispersion pattern of the CBU-27 would not be bad either.

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 13 September 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:

Frankly, I'd rather that the artillery mechanic be changed while keeping the damage the same:

• require TAG
  
• require artillery adjusting/aiming prior to fire-for-effect

Well, that would cut down on a lot of the nonsense, so I could agree with something like that.

Quote

Additionally, instead of changing artillery, why not add more useful modules like:

• smoke rounds - for wide-area cover, for blinding the enemy
  
• airbursts - increased chance of damage on upper half of mech
  
• mines/cluster bombs - increased chance of damage on lower have of mech, area denial
  
• sticky incendiaries - massive heat induced on enemy

I might not necessarily agree with all those ideas, but I'm not against more consumable types.

Quote

Truth be told, I have a more radical idea with regard to air strikes.

To make air strikes have a totally different flavor from artillery, I'd prefer the former to deliver cluster munitions. As such, they will have much more bomblets but less damage per ( ). Then we can have the submunitions spread out in a cone of around 10-20 degrees. Alternatively, following the dispersion pattern of the CBU-27 would not be bad either.

I don't really see a need to replace air strikes or change it very much, I have more of a problem with artillery strikes. It does suck when I'm trying to capture the objective though and I get blasted apart because I have to sit there, and it's equally annoying whether it's an air strike or artillery strike, although if something changed to alleviate that it wouldn't necessarily have to be the strikes that change I guess.

[TygerLily]

Kill me with skill...not with luck.