86 replies to this topic

[Koniks]

WM Quicksilver, on 10 March 2015 - 10:43 PM, said:

Gimmick is usually used in RPG style games and I feel the usage of it by pokemon players is fairly apt and easily put in terms of MWO.

While I recognize that video games have their own vocab, gimmick is a word that exists in real life. The rest of the world thinks that a gimmick is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."

So I'm saying that quirks, the other things I already highlighted, and your suggestion are mechanics intended to attract business to (use of) mechs that are made crappy by poor implementation of core game mechanics.

Ultimatum X, on 10 March 2015 - 11:01 PM, said:

Mechs are being given armor/structure quirks for two primary reasons:

1) PGI has tried to stay true to the art in battle tech, they have not always gotten it perfect but that's why some mechs are as big as they are and some as are small as they are.

2) PGI didn't invent the ridiculously bad power gap between IS & Clan mechs, they have inherited it. They are trying to close that gap as much as possible so that we have a relatively balanced game with faction warfare.

1 & 2 are compounded issues, it makes for some complicated and tricky balance. This is just the nature of the beast.

All mechs got doubled armor even before the introduction of Clans. This is because of the original poor implementation of core game mechanics that allows us to do more damage more quickly and more accurately than in Table Top. PGI also removed the original flavor of mechs by making it possible for every mech of the same weight to carry the same amount of armor. But at least that could be justified by requiring the mech to sacrifice slots, take a smaller engine, fewer heat sinks, or less payload. Weightless armor/IS quirks are a bad job of re-implementing that variety.

Yes, Clans exacerbated the original bad decisions. But instead of adhering to BattleTech powercreep, they could have gone another route. Like making Clans hit hard but infrequently with better range while I.S. mechs do better DPS with smaller alphas.

Edited by Mizeur, 11 March 2015 - 06:13 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 March 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

compared to the IS losing their entire mech when the ST comes off an XL? YEah seems minor, plus a sword and board meta build can sacrifice that half.

Well the let's just make them all The SAME. That would be FUN surely?

[Almond Brown]

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

While I recognize that video games have their own vocab, gimmick is a word that exists in real life. The rest of the world thinks that a gimmick is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."

So I'm saying that quirks, the other things I already highlighted, and your suggestion are mechanics intended to attract business to (use of) mechs that are made crappy by poor implementation of core game mechanics.

All mechs got doubled armor even before the introduction of Clans. This is because of the original poor implementation of core game mechanics that allows us to do more damage more quickly and more accurately than in Table Top. PGI also removed the original flavor of mechs by making it possible for every mech of the same weight to carry the same amount of armor. But at least that could be justified by requiring the mech to sacrifice slots, take a smaller engine, fewer heat sinks, or less payload. Weightless armor/IS quirks are a bad job of re-implementing that variety.

Yes, Clans exacerbated the original bad decisions. But instead of adhering to BattleTech powercreep, they could have gone another route. Like making Clans hit hard but infrequently with better range while I.S. mechs do better DPS with smaller alphas.

What you seek is TT = MWO and that is simply bs in a RT environment. Pace of play was decided, likely, on day 3 of the "Concept Phase" for MWO. Once set, it is what it is. ALL decisions after that are a result of.

It is a RT video game. You don't like the pace of play or the TTK as is, no worries. There is likely one out there you may find more to your liking. It may not be BT or TT based though. Good luck with that search.

Edited by Almond Brown, 11 March 2015 - 07:04 AM.

[Koniks]

Almond Brown, on 11 March 2015 - 07:03 AM, said:

What you seek is TT = MWO and that is simply bs in a RT environment. Pace of play was decided, likely, on day 3 of the "Concept Phase" for MWO. Once set, it is what it is. ALL decisions after that are a result of.

It is a RT video game. You don't like the pace of play or the TTK as is, no worries. There is likely one out there you may find more to your liking. It may not be BT or TT based though. Good luck with that search.

I'm not looking for Table Top. I didn't play. But I do understand the mechanics it used to balance the game.

And PGI chose most of those mechanics as the core of its game. And implemented things that approximate them where there wasn't a direct translation from turn-based to RT. That includes things like beam duration and projectile velocity.

So this isn't about my preference for using Table Top. I've played the MechWarrior and other BattleTech video games since the 80s. This is about how they chose to adapt the rules. This game has the most arcade, least simulator feel of any of them.

This is about fixing the implementation at the core of the game rather than treating the symptoms with things like ghost heat. But thanks for telling me to find another game instead of suggest ways to improve the one I like and have invested time and money in. I appreciate you looking out for me.

Edited by Mizeur, 11 March 2015 - 07:17 AM.

[Ultimax]

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

Actually, I'm not looking for Table Top. I didn't play. But I do understand the mechanics it used to balance the game.

So this isn't about my preference for using Table Top. This is about fixing the implementation at the core of the game rather than treating the symptoms with things like ghost heat.

I think you need to just get over it.


AC 20 can fire every 4s.

I promise you, that you do not get to fire it every 4s in a match - there is a lot of downtime.


The TT rules were an abstraction for a Table Top Wargame, this is a real time first person shooter.


Few people are going to want to play a shooting game, where they can only fire their weapons once every 10s.

[Koniks]

You're oversimplifying the issue. It's not like there's only two choices: all weapons fire constantly or all weapons fire once every 10 seconds.

We already have flamers and MGs that can shoot constantly until they run out of ammo or you shut down from heat. And we have a weapon with a 6.15 max cooldown. And that was originaly 7.175 seconds. We could have Gauss, AC20s, and PPCs and ERPPCs fire every 7-10 seconds. And we could have pulse lasers that work like flamers. And other weapons that fill the range in between.

Or the core heat system could be adjusted to reduce the size and frequency of alpha strikes, but that's just going to push everyone to Gauss or heat-neutral AC5s. Which still means cooldowns are a problem.

TL;DR
Powercreep is real and bad for the game. And it's been with us since day 1.

Edited by Mizeur, 11 March 2015 - 07:23 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

While I recognize that video games have their own vocab, gimmick is a word that exists in real life. The rest of the world thinks that a gimmick is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."

So I'm saying that quirks, the other things I already highlighted, and your suggestion are mechanics intended to attract business to (use of) mechs that are made crappy by poor implementation of core game mechanics.

Gimmick also tends to mean something that is useless or its feature is rather unimportant. Quirks are far from unimportant, if you want a gimmick, look no further than all the pack "unique" geometry/camo or the golden mechs. Quirks are not a gimmick anymore than this being a "Mecha" game is.

You also seem to think that profiles and hitboxes could be fixed so each mech could be balanced simply through pretty much remodeling all the mechs. While scaling the mechs is definitely needed, it is far from a fix for a problem that just comes with the territory.

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

All mechs got doubled armor even before the introduction of Clans. This is because of the original poor implementation of core game mechanics that allows us to do more damage more quickly and more accurately than in Table Top. PGI also removed the original flavor of mechs by making it possible for every mech of the same weight to carry the same amount of armor. But at least that could be justified by requiring the mech to sacrifice slots, take a smaller engine, fewer heat sinks, or less payload. Weightless armor/IS quirks are a bad job of re-implementing that variety.

Yes, Clans exacerbated the original bad decisions. But instead of adhering to BattleTech powercreep, they could have gone another route. Like making Clans hit hard but infrequently with better range while I.S. mechs do better DPS with smaller alphas.

Im gonna stop you right there, PGI didn't remove any flavor with regards to armor. Every mech had the opportunity to mount the same amount of armor as any other mech of the same tonnage. It is just that many mechs were designed bad because the guys at battletech adhered to some sort of jedi curve. Just like magic has bad cards, so to does Battletech when it comes to mechs. It is up to PGI to fix that problem, and while they havn't done the best, saying that they ruined flavor because of it is just silly. You think anyone would play the Kit Fox or Hellbringer if they were forced to take less armor than they could mount?

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 06:11 AM, said:

But at least that could be justified by requiring the mech to sacrifice slots, take a smaller engine, fewer heat sinks, or less payload. Weightless armor/IS quirks are a bad job of re-implementing that variety.

Yes, Clans exacerbated the original bad decisions. But instead of adhering to BattleTech powercreep, they could have gone another route. Like making Clans hit hard but infrequently with better range while I.S. mechs do better DPS with smaller alphas.

IS Quirks originally had nothing to do with BT canon and more to do with helping mechs that just had designs that don't do well when you target and dump 40+ damage into one section. Not sure where you get that this is meant to replace bad designs within Battletech in the first place. Not to mention most mechs after 3050 come with near full armor, the only reason most of the variants we have now come with so little is because most are Tech I designs, and that era was a whole different ballgame.

I dont know whether you read their posts about their plan for Clan tech when they first revealed them, but their idea was to make Clans play differently than the IS, thus why they had longer beam durations and ACs that fire in burst mode. This is also just coming from a meta where PPFLD was king so rather than try to balance Clans as a PPFLD design considering the amount of firepower they can mount, they went the DPS route, which is what they should've done because of how much better Clan tech tends to be in all aspects.

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

This game has the most arcade, least simulator feel of any of them.

This is about fixing the implementation at the core of the game rather than treating the symptoms with things like ghost heat. But thanks for telling me to find another game instead of suggest ways to improve the one I like and have invested time and money in. I appreciate you looking out for me.

Surely you jest, MW4 felt more like an arcade game stock than any other, and I freaking love MW4. MW4 allowed for higher alphas, had a simplified mechlab and sensor mechanics (though both of which are good things) not to mention blimp jets and the fact all mechs got more tonnage to play with than they did in BT meaning room for more weapons.

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

Or the core heat system could be adjusted to reduce the size and frequency of alpha strikes, but that's just going to push everyone to Gauss or heat-neutral AC5s. Which still means cooldowns are a problem.

Or maybe there is a fundamental problem with heat neutral weapons in an environment where heat management is forced upon us. Not to say I'm against a lower max heat to stop high heat alphas which have always been a bane in the MW4 games, but Gauss has been the best ballistic weapon for ages now even with the charge mechanic and is partly because of how good statistically it is. AC5 are always the standout AC because it just has the best damage per ton, damage to heat ratio, and range per ton.

The chances of any of that happening is very low though because PGI seems resistant to doing any sort of change like this, hell ECM and Missiles still have yet to be reworked even though they need it.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 March 2015 - 09:24 AM.

[Koniks]

I gave you my definition of gimmick. It's a dictionary definition. Sure there might be a colloquial interpretation that implies some kind of value judgment like "useless." I was pretty clear about what I meant.

Yes, the quirks serve a purpose. But they're a trick that doesn't solve the underlying issues and in fact makes them worse.

ETA: I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it. I disagree with how you've interpreted what I've written. I also think your perspective on the game is flawed and there's no real path to compromise given what you've said.

I've laid out my case. Think what you want.

Edited by Mizeur, 11 March 2015 - 11:02 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yes, the quirks serve a purpose. But they're a trick that doesn't solve the underlying issues and in fact makes them worse.

Trick implies there is something deceptive about it. As for making them worse, I would agree but that is more a problem of implementation rather than a problem with the concept of quirks which is a very important distinction to make. Honestly MW4 is the greatest example of problems with implementation and not concepts, since conceptually it did a lot of good things its just the numbers didn't work out very well.

Though I do like how you simply state my view is flawed and have yet to give any concreteness to your argue your point. Other than state that they should improve "core mechanics" without going into any detail as to what those mechanics are or what is flawed about them. As for no compromise, that is funny considering I fully support balancing long range weapons by giving them long cooldowns and in some cases increasing their effectiveness (WTB 2000 m/s PPCs) and would definitely be interested in seeing a much lower max heat as a replacement for ghost heat to see how well it handles boats outside of Gauss/AC5s but those still don't fix everything like you seemed to suggest.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 March 2015 - 11:23 AM.

[Ultimax]

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

You're oversimplifying the issue. It's not like there's only two choices: all weapons fire constantly or all weapons fire once every 10 seconds.

Of course not, but I already covered this under "dynamic first person shooter" and "10 second turn" being an abstraction.


The way it's designed now, you have periods of downtime with your weapons and periods of intense burst combat.




Feel free to harp on this all you like, the systems are in place for several years now.

We might see some minor tweaks, but doubling or tripling the time it takes weapons to cooldown will alienate many players who like the game just fine right now.

[Davers]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 March 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

Well, for the most part, that is what some of us have managed to get Russ mostly pointed at. In the case of a few tragic underperformers, I have no issue with a "related" version of the stock weapon being quirked, a good example being the CPLT-K2. I would not cry if they slapped ERPPC quirks on it instead of PPCs, as that would allow it to run it's "stockish" type loadout, but without the egregious lack of close range firepower.

Either we get 'stock mech quirks' or 'quirks that make mechs better for MWO'. You can't argue for taking away the 6K's LPL quirks while asking for K2 ERPPC quirks.

[Koniks]

Ultimatum X, on 11 March 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Of course not, but I already covered this under "dynamic first person shooter" and "10 second turn" being an abstraction.

The way it's designed now, you have periods of downtime with your weapons and periods of intense burst combat.

And I already addressed this above [ETA: it may have been in another thread with pjwned]. You're wrong to think it's an abstraction. There's a practical difference between real-time and turn-based but not a fundamental one. The point of bringing up turn duration is the limit on how many actions you're allowed to perform at once in CBT. There are also limits on how many actions you're allowed to perform in MWO. Cooldowns, heat, jump jet fuel, turn rates, acceleration, torso agility, armlock, etc.

And so what if we've had this system since development started? Like that shields developers from being criticized and alternatives being discussed?

They've added quirks (most of which have sped up fire rates and reduced heat penalties), ghost heat, changed weapon mechanics, added whole new game modes, new mech construction rules, changed how jump jets work, limited how many Gauss you can fire at once and a whole other host of things to the game.

So it's a little ridiculous to dismiss changing the core mechanics in a more substantive way.

Edited by Mizeur, 11 March 2015 - 06:42 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mizeur, on 11 March 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

And I already addressed this above with pjwned. You're wrong to think it's an abstraction. There's a practical difference between real-time and turn-based but not a fundamental one.

That's the point in an abstraction, ignoring the practical difference between something. Abstraction has nothing to do with fundamentals it has everything to do with implementation. The differences between similar abstractions is a fundamental issue.

When we abstract, we abstract to shove aside the inner-workings of something and focus on the interaction of the abstraction.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 11 March 2015 - 02:56 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Almond Brown, on 11 March 2015 - 06:52 AM, said:

Well the let's just make them all The SAME. That would be FUN surely?

Oh, so having them still SUPERIOR in every way is not more fun. Gotcha.

Because hot and slow still beats dead, every single time.

Davers, on 11 March 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

Either we get 'stock mech quirks' or 'quirks that make mechs better for MWO'. You can't argue for taking away the 6K's LPL quirks while asking for K2 ERPPC quirks.

Did you read the full proposals I make? I think not, unless you are cherrypicking to QQ.

Also it's very arguable that LPL quirks were actually "better" than the current LL ones. Not my fault Russ didn't put them on the logical candidate...the 7K.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 11 March 2015 - 06:13 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 March 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

That's the point in an abstraction, ignoring the practical difference between something. Abstraction has nothing to do with fundamentals it has everything to do with implementation. The differences between similar abstractions is a fundamental issue.

When we abstract, we abstract to shove aside the inner-workings of something and focus on the interaction of the abstraction.

[Kenyon Burguess]

ive had enough of the great lore experiment with the side torsos of clan mechs. let them choose their engines, and let them die when a side pops just like the IS.

[Davers]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 March 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Also it's very arguable that LPL quirks were actually "better" than the current LL ones. Not my fault Russ didn't put them on the logical candidate...the 7K.

I don't care which set was better. It was a build I enjoyed, that was changed purely to satisfy the 'stock mech quirk' crowd. Now we don't have a single medium with LPL quirks.

[Koniks]

WM Quicksilver, on 11 March 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

That's the point in an abstraction, ignoring the practical difference between something. Abstraction has nothing to do with fundamentals it has everything to do with implementation. The differences between similar abstractions is a fundamental issue.

When we abstract, we abstract to shove aside the inner-workings of something and focus on the interaction of the abstraction.

Your point doesn't seem relevant.

Talk about abstractions and everything else all you want. It's a red herring. The core interaction is that allowing bigger, more rapid alphas, sustained for a longer period of time led to low time to kill. Powercreep from the start. Doubling armor reinforced the need for big, rapid, sustained alphas.

Quirks have further reinforced that. Including the armor/IS ones.

QED.

[CantHandletheTruth]

topgun505, on 10 March 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

Yes. Engine crits are still not modeled aside from full side torso destructions.

But honestly, they SHOULD be implemented. I can't imagine that it would be all that hard to code.

No that would mean a light with MGs could kill an IS mech with the TORSO STILL THERE.

Careful what you wish for,

[Bishop Steiner]

Davers, on 11 March 2015 - 06:29 PM, said:

I don't care which set was better. It was a build I enjoyed, that was changed purely to satisfy the 'stock mech quirk' crowd. Now we don't have a single medium with LPL quirks.

And had Russ listened to me? We'd have:

WVR-6K
Max Engine: 375
TORSO TURN RATE (YAW): 25.00 %
ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RA): 18.00
LARGE LASER RANGE: 20 % (LPL and ERLL range 10%)
ENERGY RANGE: 10 %
ENERGY COOLDOWN: 15.00 %
LARGE LASER HEAT GENERATION: -20 % (LPL and ERLL -10%)
ENERGY HEAT GENERATION: -10 %
LASER DURATION: -15.00 %
MISSILE COOLDOWN: 15.00 %

WVR-6R
TORSO TURN RATE (YAW): 25.00 %
ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE (RA): 18.00
AC/5 COOLDOWN: 20.00 % (All Autocannons Cooldown: 10%)
BALLISTIC COOLDOWN: 20.00 %
MISSILE RANGE: 12.50 %

WVR-7K
TORSO TURN RATE (YAW): 25.00 %
SRM 6 COOLDOWN: 20.00 % (SRM/SSRM Cooldown 10%)
MISSILE COOLDOWN: 10.00 %
ENERGY COOLDOWN: 10 %
ENERGY HEAT REDUCTION: -10%
LARGE PULSE LASER HEAT REDUCTION -20% (LL/ERLL Heat Reduction 10%)

And we would have more flexible builds with the Stock still the favored, but good jsutifiable quirks to run agains tthe "max", too.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 11 March 2015 - 07:00 PM.