1123 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimatum X, on 12 January 2015 - 01:44 PM, said:

Yes, and how many clan units drop in full waves of Stormcrows or Timberwolves?

Both sides will have their top tier go-to decks, this will always be the case due to restrictions.



Also, and this gets left out all the time.

We have TWO maps for CW. Two.


One of them is bad for 9S ER PPCs because it is a hot map, with convoluted approach lanes.


The other is basically custom design for long range energy snipers, and you can basically see the enemy team almost to their spawns...



Lastly, it's not dominating the Solo & Group queue from what I've seen - it shows up, it's useful but it's not even remotely as common as it is in CW.

7.5 heat does not give a dang if it's a hot map. Yeah, you can't spam as much, but neither can the other guy.

Wildstreak, on 13 January 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am sure the 9S fans know to adjust RoF for heat, not that hard in any Mech that also has to do it. Players learned to do it in the non-CW matches where you could drop on any map from the cold Alpine Peaks to the hot Terra Therma.


Well, FASA did open the floodgates to Hell when they allowed customizaton way back in the 1980s.

not really, because actual, by the book TT customization had a lot of checks and balances. It's just like with any home RPG or the like most players and GMs conveniently ignored whatever rules they wanted.

[Metus regem]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 13 January 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

2. Boats are for children who don't want a real MWO game but an I win button, I'm sure you wre a great fan of splat cats, and small laser hunchbacks... they add all kinds of "flavor"

I hate to say it, but there are several mechs in TT, from 2750/3025/3050 TRO's that are boats, the Nova being the first to come to mind for a boating mech, most Catapults as well, same goes for the Hunchback 4P... Boating has a long estabilished history with Battle tech and Mech warrior, it is not something new to MWO, let alone MW 2, 3 or 4... hell even the Mech Commander siereis had boating, often with just stock mechs!

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 13 January 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

I hate to say it, but there are several mechs in TT, from 2750/3025/3050 TRO's that are boats, the Nova being the first to come to mind for a boating mech, most Catapults as well, same goes for the Hunchback 4P... Boating has a long estabilished history with Battle tech and Mech warrior, it is not something new to MWO, let alone MW 2, 3 or 4... hell even the Mech Commander siereis had boating, often with just stock mechs!

boating usually was more redundancy though. A Nova could NOT fire all 12 er mlasers, without shutting down. It really became a symptom of the DHS powercreep. With SHS very few mechs could alph, and most not more than once without serious heat issues. the AWS was powerful because it could keep up the 3/3/2 fire pattern almost indefinitely. The 4P HBK could do it too, but you had 8 distinct to hit rolls for those 8 mlasers,.

Here, it's all pinpoint convergence, which is why boating and alphas are broken.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

boating usually was more redundancy though. A Nova could NOT fire all 12 er mlasers, without shutting down. It really became a symptom of the DHS powercreep. With SHS very few mechs could alph, and most not more than once without serious heat issues. the AWS was powerful because it could keep up the 3/3/2 fire pattern almost indefinitely. The 4P HBK could do it too, but you had 8 distinct to hit rolls for those 8 mlasers,.

Here, it's all pinpoint convergence, which is why boating and alphas are broken.

True, but he was calling out boating, like it was something new to MWO, so I just wanted to point out that they have existed in one form or another for 20/30 years.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 13 January 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

True, but he was calling out boating, like it was something new to MWO, so I just wanted to point out that they have existed in one form or another for 20/30 years.

True. Problem is end of the day,its not a simple problem fixed by one thing, but a complex problem of overlapping issues.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

True. Problem is end of the day,its not a simple problem fixed by one thing, but a complex problem of overlapping issues.

Yup, just as many of us on these boards are arm-chair game developers, and I am sure that one day PGI will get things sorted out, and fixed the prefect convergence issues as well as a few of the other issues we see in MWO, it is just going to take time, and that seems to be something that a lot of people have issue with.

[Serpieri]

Wildstreak, on 13 January 2015 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am sure the 9S fans know to adjust RoF for heat, not that hard in any Mech that also has to do it. Players learned to do it in the non-CW matches where you could drop on any map from the cold Alpine Peaks to the hot Terra Therma.


Well, FASA did open the floodgates to Hell when they allowed customizaton way back in the 1980s.

Not at all, Battletech was quite balanced - it used a BPV system. Since that doesn't exist in mechwarrior online, than customization needs to be limited to control the amount of damage that can be alpha'd by restricting the size of the hardpoints. So that people will no longer be able to put assault loadouts on heavy mechs and so on.

Edited by Serpieri, 13 January 2015 - 01:39 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 13 January 2015 - 01:37 PM, said:

Yup, just as many of us on these boards are arm-chair game developers, and I am sure that one day PGI will get things sorted out, and fixed the prefect convergence issues as well as a few of the other issues we see in MWO, it is just going to take time, and that seems to be something that a lot of people have issue with.

I'll admit, I'm an idea guy, who is always thinking about ways to do things, but I have to check a lot of those ideas with people who do programming and such. It's actually how a good design team works, as the programmers have the know how to know what should work, but the designer often has the outside the box thinking that years of doing things a certain way sometimes dull. Especially if the project manager is at least somewhat knowledgeable on the process, they usually have more of the "big picture view" than the individual programmers.

Checks and balances.

I've seen some truly talented programmers beat their head against a wall over a problem, and then have an innocuous suggestion from an utter noob make them think the problem from a different angle and have it sorted almost right away.

Serpieri, on 13 January 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Not at all, Battletech was quite balanced - it used a BPV system. Since that doesn't exist in mechwarrior online, than customization needs to be limited to control the amount of damage that can be alpha'd by restricting the size of the hardpoints. So that people will no longer be able to put assault loadouts on heavy mechs and so on.

lol... BV never worked. Btech tried to make it work for over 20 years and has consistently admitted it's broken and under reevaluation, all the time.

It's better than nothing, but it's not some mystic fix all.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

I'll admit, I'm an idea guy, who is always thinking about ways to do things, but I have to check a lot of those ideas with people who do programming and such. It's actually how a good design team works, as the programmers have the know how to know what should work, but the designer often has the outside the box thinking that years of doing things a certain way sometimes dull. Especially if the project manager is at least somewhat knowledgeable on the process, they usually have more of the "big picture view" than the individual programmers.

Checks and balances.

I've seen some truly talented programmers beat their head against a wall over a problem, and then have an innocuous suggestion from an utter noob make them think the problem from a different angle and have it sorted almost right away.

I see that almost every couple of weeks at work, it's really humbling to see it.

Quote

lol... BV never worked. Btech tried to make it work for over 20 years and has consistently admitted it's broken and under reevaluation, all the time.

It's better than nothing, but it's not some mystic fix all.

Yea, I'm still trying to figure it out some times, as it works well for looking at mechs, till you start to see that a Timber Wolf Prime has a higher BV than a lot of IS 100t assualt mechs, right up into Dark Age... and that is before you add in the pilot...

I've run a Timber Wolf Prime with a 3/4 Clan Pilot against a MAD-6D Marauder II with a 4/5 twice now in mega mek, both times the Timber Wolf has come out on top... not that suprising when it has about a 1000 BV advantage thanks to the pilot.

[Black Arachne]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

I'll admit, I'm an idea guy, who is always thinking about ways to do things, but I have to check a lot of those ideas with people who do programming and such. It's actually how a good design team works, as the programmers have the know how to know what should work, but the designer often has the outside the box thinking that years of doing things a certain way sometimes dull. Especially if the project manager is at least somewhat knowledgeable on the process, they usually have more of the "big picture view" than the individual programmers.

Checks and balances.

I've seen some truly talented programmers beat their head against a wall over a problem, and then have an innocuous suggestion from an utter noob make them think the problem from a different angle and have it sorted almost right away.


lol... BV never worked. Btech tried to make it work for over 20 years and has consistently admitted it's broken and under reevaluation, all the time.

It's better than nothing, but it's not some mystic fix all.

My gaming community never had a problem with BPV, most games ended very closely - a few to upsets from ammo explosions taking a mech out early or a headshot...but all great games

[Bishop Steiner]

Black Arachne, on 13 January 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

My gaming community never had a problem with BPV, most games ended very closely - a few to upsets from ammo explosions taking a mech out early or a headshot...but all great games

then you are in the rarity. If I recall correctly CGL is in the midst of trying to rework it again.

[Serpieri]

Black Arachne, on 13 January 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

My gaming community never had a problem with BPV, most games ended very closely - a few to upsets from ammo explosions taking a mech out early or a headshot...but all great games

Ditto,,its why clans use stars and is uses lances - most of those games - would end up being 12vs10, unless you used some of the really old IS designs then it was even possible to see 16vs10...and you get an idea why the IS was so hard pressed.

[Black Arachne]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

then you are in the rarity. If I recall correctly CGL is in the midst of trying to rework it again.

All systems are refined - don't think I've ever seen a a finished product on version 1.0.

[Bishop Steiner]

Black Arachne, on 13 January 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

All systems are refined - don't think I've ever seen a a finished product on version 1.0.

Serpieri, on 13 January 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Ditto,,its why clans use stars and is uses lances - most of those games - would end up being 12vs10, unless you used some of the really old IS designs then it was even possible to see 16vs10...and you get an idea why the IS was so hard pressed.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value


"Combat Value (CV), the system's earliest (official) incarnation, was introduced in 1994 in the Tactical Handbook and values were included in several FASA-era record sheet products. There were many problems with Combat Value, and so it was replaced by the Battle Value systems.
Previously, the "Combat Efficiency Factors" system by Joel Bancroft-Connors had been published in the BattleTechnology magazine, an official BattleTech magazine which was canon in its time, but is not counted among the canonical sources anymore. The Combat Value system is thought to have been developed independently from the Combat Efficiency Factors system.
Battle Value

BV 1
Battle Value (BV), the successor to CV, is a more refined system that takes more factors into account. The original BV formula was released in 1997 in Maximum Tech and has been tweaked a number of times since. An upgraded BV formula was presented in BattleTech Master Rules, and that version was also used in the FanPro reprint of Maximum Tech. It is now generally referred to as "BV 1".

BV 2
The formula underwent a substantial revision in TechManual, leading fans to dub it "BV 2.0". It was again tweaked for the reprint of TechManual where the multiplier table for pilot skill was changed.
While work was being done on the MUL project (which includes providing BV 2.0 values for all units) it was found that the BV rules were inconsistent or unclear in some cases, leading the MUL team to implement further improvements. Their update has jokingly been referred to as BV 2.1 internally, though the system is still generally referred to as BV 2.0.
The values provided by MUL are the official values.


BV 3
Since 2012 Line Developer Herbert A. Beas II repeatedly said that he was considering changing the BV system into a much simpler system, and that the developers were tentatively exploring various ideas. However, the overhaul of the BV system, often called "BV 3", was apparently put on the back burner and in a BattleChat on 26 January 2013 said that the current plan was to patch BV 2 and give it "one more chance" with an upcoming set of errata; in a later BattleChat (20 April 2013) he remarked that they had "put the brakes on the new BV system to see how well received the latest errata holds." He also remarked that redoing BV would necessitate a rework on the upcoming Alpha Strike (ruleset)."

Because they give working systems "one more chance" all the time.

http://battletech.rp...wsid=235&page=0
"Although the new BV2 system addressed some problems, it created chaos among the designs. Older books listed only the BV, the new readouts only the BV2, and there were some interrim products, like the TRO3075, that contains a lot of miscalculated BVs. Miscalculation in official products remains a problem, but nowadays it works somewhat better"

etc etc etc

But I am sure the majority of the gaming industry, including CGL's line developer lead, are wrong.

[Black Arachne]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value


"Combat Value (CV), the system's earliest (official) incarnation, was introduced in 1994 in the Tactical Handbook and values were included in several FASA-era record sheet products. There were many problems with Combat Value, and so it was replaced by the Battle Value systems.
Previously, the "Combat Efficiency Factors" system by Joel Bancroft-Connors had been published in the BattleTechnology magazine, an official BattleTech magazine which was canon in its time, but is not counted among the canonical sources anymore. The Combat Value system is thought to have been developed independently from the Combat Efficiency Factors system.
Battle Value

BV 1
Battle Value (BV), the successor to CV, is a more refined system that takes more factors into account. The original BV formula was released in 1997 in Maximum Tech and has been tweaked a number of times since. An upgraded BV formula was presented in BattleTech Master Rules, and that version was also used in the FanPro reprint of Maximum Tech. It is now generally referred to as "BV 1".

BV 2
The formula underwent a substantial revision in TechManual, leading fans to dub it "BV 2.0". It was again tweaked for the reprint of TechManual where the multiplier table for pilot skill was changed.
While work was being done on the MUL project (which includes providing BV 2.0 values for all units) it was found that the BV rules were inconsistent or unclear in some cases, leading the MUL team to implement further improvements. Their update has jokingly been referred to as BV 2.1 internally, though the system is still generally referred to as BV 2.0.
The values provided by MUL are the official values.


BV 3
Since 2012 Line Developer Herbert A. Beas II repeatedly said that he was considering changing the BV system into a much simpler system, and that the developers were tentatively exploring various ideas. However, the overhaul of the BV system, often called "BV 3", was apparently put on the back burner and in a BattleChat on 26 January 2013 said that the current plan was to patch BV 2 and give it "one more chance" with an upcoming set of errata; in a later BattleChat (20 April 2013) he remarked that they had "put the brakes on the new BV system to see how well received the latest errata holds." He also remarked that redoing BV would necessitate a rework on the upcoming Alpha Strike (ruleset)."

Because they give working systems "one more chance" all the time.

http://battletech.rp...wsid=235&page=0
"Although the new BV2 system addressed some problems, it created chaos among the designs. Older books listed only the BV, the new readouts only the BV2, and there were some interrim products, like the TRO3075, that contains a lot of miscalculated BVs. Miscalculation in official products remains a problem, but nowadays it works somewhat better"

etc etc etc

But I am sure the majority of the gaming industry, including CGL's line developer lead, are wrong.

Which changes nothing - we still use them - we still having fun with them - heck they are people that still play the original DnD or prefer 3.5 over the new versions --- but I guess there wrong becuase someone wants to remake a thing and re-sell it

[Bishop Steiner]

Black Arachne, on 13 January 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

Which changes nothing - we still use them - we still having fun with them - heck they are people that still play the original DnD or prefer 3.5 over the new versions --- but I guess there wrong becuase someone wants to remake a thing and re-sell it

Not at all.

Is there anything wrong with using something if you enjoy it? Nope.

But claiming it would "fix" what is broken, simply doesn't fly when it has never really done what it was designed for in the first place.

[Serpieri]

Just like this game - flawed but still fun for a few hours

[Black Arachne]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 02:34 PM, said:

Not at all.

Is there anything wrong with using something if you enjoy it? Nope.

But claiming it would "fix" what is broken, simply doesn't fly when it has never really done what it was designed for in the first place.

Never made that claim - said it worked for Battletech. Serpieri did suggest hardpoint limitations for MWO.

[Bishop Steiner]

Serpieri, on 13 January 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

Just like this game - flawed but still fun for a few hours

good description.

And make no mistake I would love to see better MM. Love to. (And convergence, better heatscale, sized hardpoints, and a lot of things, lol).

I just try to stick to what at this point, might be realistically attainable. Which sadly rules out a lot.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 January 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

good description.

And make no mistake I would love to see better MM. Love to. (And convergence, better heatscale, sized hardpoints, and a lot of things, lol).

I just try to stick to what at this point, might be realistically attainable. Which sadly rules out a lot.

IS mechs can have sized Hard points.... I would love to see just pod space on my clan mechs, the way they are ment to be.... But well, that is just another windmill to be tilting at these days...