143 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Mackman, on 30 July 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Lag is a bad thing. Nobody likes lag.

.... and I didn't post that lag is a good thing in any way. I was simply using your own posted standard as a way to illustrate the obsurdity of your standard in actual application.

Quote

So when you take the fact of lag and use it to say that adding additional randomness is good, that's dishonest.

I didn't use it to say that "adding additional randomness (whatever you mean by random - i suspect you mean something different than I do by that word) is a good thing.

Quote

And yes, for the last time, your version of a mech simulator would introduce additional randomness to the game. Are you seriously trying to deny it? It's randomness with a purpose, yes, but still randomness.

By "random" ... you mean? I'm not asking to play word games; I want to actually understand what you're getting at, even if I don't agree with you.

Quote

I started playing this game because of what PGI advertised it as: a "thinking man's shooter." I want to have direct control of my mech in a manner inconsistent with the larger universe, and I'm not afraid to say it. Do you know why? Because this game was built, from the ground up, to offer a degree of control inconsistent with the larger universe, and it was advertised as such. (by virtue of being called a "shooter")

PGI calling the game a "shooter" does not mean they than must have thought of the game as being inconsistent with the setting.

Quote

I don't want my mech to take into account the enemy mechs' speed, its cover, or my speed, before determining whether I hit it or not. Do you know why? Because I am already doing all of that myself.

So, by extension, do tank gunners not aim? Did battleship gunners not aim? How about chopper pilots with their miniguns? Or the fellows in the flying gunships? ... I highly doubt you'd say that they "don't aim."

The point is, you appear to actually be upset not about "aim," but upset about not being in direct control in all conditions of the end-result of firing any given weapon.

You seem to basically be objecting to not being in direct control of the weapons.

If this is really what you're objecting to, Ok... but I have to ask, why don't you similarly object to missile weapons, or cluster weapons, or any weapon that doesn't always hit exactly what's under the reticule? These factors that make these weapons not hit are also some form of "randomness" that remove the ability to do what you're calling "aim."

This is all entirely aside from the lore; in which it's obvious that the battlemechs always matter... which is why pilots who can think for their mech's the best are considered such awesome pilots in the lore. It really is just how the setting works. Which leads to the question... why should the lore be ignored in such an utterly central area, especially when there are other games out there, even in the mech/a video game genre, which so easily fulfil the "fps/shooter" slot... and likely justifiably should be, by their settings? (yes developers, I'm prodding you too.)

Quote

That's what "aiming" is, and that's what I enjoy about MWO. Your combat system is sterilized and boring, and I would not enjoy it even a little bit. Even a standard CoF would be better.

CoF would give less reward for player skill and would result in nonsense gameplay (things missing or hitting in ways that are utter nonsense given the conditions at the time of the shot). It's all but impossible to implement a CoF system with any sort of depth that makes sense in the mech genre. There are too many factors to keep track of.

Edited by Pht, 30 July 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Mackman]

Pht, on 30 July 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

.... and I didn't post that lag is a good thing in any way. I was simply using your own posted standard as a way to illustrate the obsurdity of your standard in actual application.

Wanting to avoid additional randomness in an environment where some element of randomness is not absurd: It's normal. My standard in "actual application" is "Alleviate inherent randomness wherever possible: Avoid inserting additional randomness. Which, if past experience is anything to go by, is the standard the devs have as well.

Quote

I didn't use it to say that "adding additional randomness (whatever you mean by random - i suspect you mean something different than I do by that word) is a good thing.

By "random" ... you mean? I'm not asking to play word games; I want to actually understand what you're getting at, even if I don't agree with you.

In your system, everything factors into a big calculator. Movement, speed, heat, cover, all go into a "to hit" modifier. With both targets still, at 0 heat, let's say a 95%-100% hit chance. With 50% heat, both mechs moving at 70 kph, one mech partially obscured behind a ridge: let's say 50%. The numbers aren't important: What's important is that you're introducing a significant element of chance into the game. Whether you hit the mech you're aiming at, and what component you hit, is now out of your control to a significant degree. Sure, there are things you can do to alleviate that (to a degree), but that doesn't change the element of inherent chance and randomness.

Quote

PGI calling the game a "shooter" does not mean they than must have thought of the game as being inconsistent with the setting.

Does it not? Your system, which remains incredibly close to the source material, is by no means a shooter. It's much more a simulation, not a shooter. A shooter is universally understood to be something much, much different than what you interpret the source material to be.

Quote

So, by extension, do tank gunners not aim? Did battleship gunners not aim? How about chopper pilots with their miniguns? Or the fellows in the flying gunships? ... I highly doubt you'd say that they "don't aim."

The point is, you appear to actually be upset not about "aim," but upset about not being in direct control in all conditions of the end-result of firing any given weapon.

You seem to basically be objecting to not being in direct control of the weapons.

If this is really what you're objecting to, Ok... but I have to ask, why don't you similarly object to missile weapons, or cluster weapons, or any weapon that doesn't always hit exactly what's under the reticule? These factors that make these weapons not hit are also some form of "randomness" that remove the ability to do what you're calling "aim."

Sure, they aim: But not in a way that's enjoyable for a video game advertised as a shooter.

And I'm not against those other weapons because people are free to use them or avoid them: The spread of SRM's and LRM's is consistent, as is the spread of an LBX. The ballistic weapons all have an entirely consistent arc and speed. The degree to which SRMs hit is entirely dependent on your aim and the distance between you and the target.


You are entirely correct about what I'm "upset" about. And in the way you phrase it, you yourself admit that in your system, the MechWarrior is not in direct control of his weapons. And if not him, who? The Mech. By what mechanism? Randomly generated numbers derived from "to hit" modifiers.

Quote

This is all entirely aside from the lore; in which it's obvious that the battlemechs always matter... which is why pilots who can think for their mech's the best are considered such awesome pilots in the lore. It really is just how the setting works. Which leads to the question... why should the lore be ignored in such an utterly central area, especially when there are other games out there, even in the mech/a video game genre, which so easily fulfil the "fps/shooter" slot... and likely justifiably should be, by their settings? (yes developers, I'm prodding you too.)

Because PGI has a lot of people who enjoy the current combat mechanics, or enjoy them "potentially" (granted proper balance). "The lore", in this case, makes for a game that is significantly less fun to a significant chunk of PGI's player-base.

I love the feel of the mechs. I love the weight and heft of each mech and each weapon. I love how it feels to make a difficult shot and see the rounds impact the target. I love piloting PGI's interpretation of a Mech, where the MW is in much more control than in the lore.

In your combat system, there isn't enough for the pilot to do. There is only so much the pilot can do to impact the outcome of the match. That's my objection.

[Pht]

Mackman, on 30 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

Wanting to avoid additional randomness in an environment where some element of randomness is not absurd: It's normal. My standard in "actual application" is "Alleviate inherent randomness wherever possible: Avoid inserting additional randomness. Which, if past experience is anything to go by, is the standard the devs have as well.

I really need to know what you mean by "random."

I suspect we are talking right past each other on this point.

Do you mean something like, perhaps "not predictable in any way" ... or "nonsense" ... or what?

Quote

In your system, everything factors into a big calculator.

----

Movement, speed, heat, cover, all go into a "to hit" modifier. With both targets still, at 0 heat, let's say a 95%-100% hit chance. With 50% heat, both mechs moving at 70 kph, one mech partially obscured behind a ridge: let's say 50%. The numbers aren't important: What's important is that you're introducing a significant element of chance into the game.

All gaming systems reduce to math calculations.

----

First ... you left out range, a very important factor. Beyond that, it's quite easy to take from the OP and thus actually build up something from what I've actually put forth; that would have a lot more weight.

The numbers are never unimportant. They describe what's actually happened or what will happen.

Both targets still ... that's +0 for the shooter and -1 to hit the other guy. 50% heat ... this is ambiguous... do you mean 50% of total heat capacity per ten seconds left over after ten seconds of dumping heat? ... The effect is unknown, because we don't know the heat capacity numeric - It could be next to nothing, or really bad. Point being, you'd have to be running very hot to miss while standing still and shooting at a stationary target.

On the secondary example, 70 kph doesn't give the same modifier in every mech. So I'll presume the shooting 'Mech is running, just to make it harder on myself.

Target moving at 70kph = +3, Self running +2, add partial cover for +1, so a total of +6, for a 72.22% hit rate, but because of partial cover, more of your shots cluster against a smaller cross-section of the targeted mech, meaning more damage concentration.

Quote

Whether you hit the mech you're aiming at, and what component you hit, is now out of your control to a significant degree. Sure, there are things you can do to alleviate that (to a degree), but that doesn't change the element of inherent chance and randomness.

Whether the targeted 'Mech gets hit or not would not be any less in our control than it is now or has been in previous MW games - the factors that affect the 'mech's ability to bring it's weapons onto target can virtually all be controlled - or in numbers terms, you can drive the total to-hit down to +2 or +3 on 2d6. In fact, it's possible to achieve numerically negative modifiers.

What component you hit - yes, it's not as easy to blast off a specific component. It is still possible (as it is in the lore) - the difference being that this component-level chiseling off changes from being the one tactic that finds them all, the one tactic that brings them all into the one-dimensionality and binds them in the land of legging and ct-coring... to one in a group of viable tactics.

"Inherent chance" - Unlike the inherent chance that you may not get the mouse around quickly enough, or that your target may move unpredictably the exact moment you click the mouse or pull the trigger, or that your mental processes that determine where to place the reticule may be off because, by chance, you didn't take all of the factors into account - all forms of "inherent chance" in the current combat mechanic?

Still wondering what/which meaning you're attaching to "random" - and the word is coming up repeatedly.

Quote

Does it not? Your system, which remains incredibly close to the source material, is by no means a shooter. It's much more a simulation, not a shooter. A shooter is universally understood to be something much, much different than what you interpret the source material to be.

Should I or anyone else really think that you (or any human) actually know a universal about how people define any given word? If we shouldn't presume that all swans are white just because all the ones we've seen were... than ...

All that I would dare say is inherent in the word "shooter," when referring to any video game, is that things get shot at by something in the game.

Quote

Sure, they aim: But not in a way that's enjoyable for a video game advertised as a shooter.

----

And I'm not against those other weapons because people are free to use them or avoid them: The spread of SRM's and LRM's is consistent, as is the spread of an LBX. The ballistic weapons all have an entirely consistent arc and speed. The degree to which SRMs hit is entirely dependent on your aim and the distance between you and the target.

----

You are entirely correct about what I'm "upset" about. And in the way you phrase it, you yourself admit that in your system, the MechWarrior is not in direct control of his weapons. And if not him, who? The Mech. By what mechanism? Randomly generated numbers derived from "to hit" modifiers.

Than, by all means, say that you think it wouldn't be fun... but please don't say that the OP removes aiming from the player without at least defining what you mean by "aim." Than at least everyone has a chance of understanding what you mean!

"Game advertised as a shooter" - I'd be interested to know how PGI defined/defines "shooter."
PS: "Got link" for the advertisement of MWO as a shooter? I'm drawing a blank on that one.

----

... as also people would be free to avoid the MW genre if they didn't want a first-person bipedal armored combat sim. It's not like there aren't alternatives atm. However, there *are no* mech games that have robust simulation of a 'mech's ability to bring it's weapons to bear on a target; and there's never been one for the BT setting. Never.

SRM/LRM/LBX spread being consistent - yes, and the 'Mech's ability to bring it's weapons to bear is consistent and predictable under any given condition; and the player chooses under which conditions to shoot.

It's not too hard to learn how to make it easier for your 'mech to hit things... Wanna hit more? Slow down a bit, cool off, operate at medium range for your weapon ... wanna hit stuff at obscene range? Brace the arm with your weapon up, wait 30 seconds or more, and wait till the target is standing still or barely moving. Wanna miss? ... Do the opposite... and all based upon the player's skill in making the right choice as to when their 'mech can make the shot.

Something currently not present in MWO.

----

Of course the Pilot isn't directly in control of the weapons. He's directly in control of the 'mech. The 'mech is what is directly in control, physically, of the weapons, and the 'mech calculates lead/convergence for the weapons in real-time. It's impossible for the pilot to have direct weapons control in the MW genre - such is not even possible with a direct neural interface. This is inherent in an armored combat sim based out of a setting with anything less than God-like pilots in pretty much magical control of their mechs.

"By what? To hit-modifiers" ... and what are those hit-percentage modifiers there for? They're there to simulate environmental conditions, like range effects, your target flitting from cover to cover, aiming at a smaller cross-section, weather effects... etc... and internal conditions, like what sort of damage your 'mech's various components have taken, it's internal waste heat level, it's movement at the time the shot is being made, if you're asking it to try and shoot at two targets at once... etc. Which of these do you object to?

----

Quote

Because PGI has a lot of people who enjoy the current combat mechanics, or enjoy them "potentially" (granted proper balance). "The lore", in this case, makes for a game that is significantly less fun to a significant chunk of PGI's player-base.

Just because possibly around some 7,000 people are playing the current implementation does not mean that they won't play a different implementation.

Especially when that new implementation has more depth of play and more deeply rewards human choices and skill.

Quote

I love the feel of the mechs. I love the weight and heft of each mech and each weapon. I love how it feels to make a difficult shot and see the rounds impact the target. I love piloting PGI's interpretation of a Mech, where the MW is in much more control than in the lore.

I'm happy you like it. I'm unhappy that anybody who wants a MW video game that actually does what the MW name means is out in the cold and has been every single time an "MW" video game has been made. You have a choice. We don't.

Quote

In your combat system, there isn't enough for the pilot to do. There is only so much the pilot can do to impact the outcome of the match. That's my objection.

"There isn't enough" - ... there's more for the pilot to do. You trade away one skill - calculating lead times for the weapons - for multiple skills that determine if your 'mech can actually get the weapons onto target... and because it is human skills in assessing conditions and human physical skills that determine which hit-table you use, the complaining that the pilot can't meaningfully impact the hit-percentages is false. In fact, you could in a certain sense say that you're still calculating lead times - for your 'mech.

Think about it ... your choices and your getting the reticule in the right place can assure a 100% hit rate. To top this off, your choices of weapons in the mechlab will be more meaningful, as pulse laser weapons have a negative 1 or 2 (-1, -2) to-hit modifier; LBX become more effective at consistenly finding or making holes and damaging internals; etc. They can also make the differnt 'mech's more unique by giving them positive and negative quirks; something present in the fictional setting but not really in the video games.

Edited by Pht, 31 July 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[Mackman]

Pht, on 31 July 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

I really need to know what you mean by "random."

I suspect we are talking right past each other on this point.

Do you mean something like, perhaps "not predictable in any way" ... or "nonsense" ... or what?

In this context, it's anything which has a % next to it. I don't think we're talking past each other on this point: I just think you're underestimating how abhorrent the core of your idea is to me.

Quote

All gaming systems reduce to math calculations.

----

First ... you left out range, a very important factor. Beyond that, it's quite easy to take from the OP and thus actually build up something from what I've actually put forth; that would have a lot more weight.

The numbers are never unimportant. They describe what's actually happened or what will happen.
...

Target moving at 70kph = +3, Self running +2, add partial cover for +1, so a total of +6, for a 72.22% hit rate, but because of partial cover, more of your shots cluster against a smaller cross-section of the targeted mech, meaning more damage concentration.

Whether the targeted 'Mech gets hit or not would not be any less in our control than it is now or has been in previous MW games - the factors that affect the 'mech's ability to bring it's weapons onto target can virtually all be controlled - or in numbers terms, you can drive the total to-hit down to +2 or +3 on 2d6. In fact, it's possible to achieve numerically negative modifiers.

How can you possibly believe the bolded? Let's lay out the scenario described here.

I'm moving at 70 mph, armed with, say, 6 medium lasers?

He, too, is moving at 70 mph, behind a low wall which obscures his legs and a tiny fraction of his CT from my view. He's turned to face me.

My reticule is resting dead center on his upper CT, and I fire.

In your system, because of all the factors above, I have a 72% hit rate. So one or two of my ML's miss entirely, one or two of them probably hit the arms, and the rest are scattered across the torso.

In the current system, I, the pilot, am already taking all the factors into account. And since I'm already aiming at the portion of the mech not obscured by cover, all of my shots hit exactly where I'm aiming

In the situation you yourself expanded on, whether I hit the mech I'm aiming at or not is reduced by 28%! So how can you possibly state that the ability to hit what you're aiming at is not reduced?

Quote

What component you hit - yes, it's not as easy to blast off a specific component. It is still possible (as it is in the lore) - the difference being that this component-level chiseling off changes from being the one tactic that finds them all, the one tactic that brings them all into the one-dimensionality and binds them in the land of legging and ct-coring... to one in a group of viable tactics.

Props for the LotR reference (although I don't know what "find" is doing in there).

What other tactics could there possibly be? The only viable tactic is to concentrate damage as much as possible, in the place it's going to be most effective. Searching for another tactic is absolutely futile.

Quote

"Inherent chance" - Unlike the inherent chance that you may not get the mouse around quickly enough, or that your target may move unpredictably the exact moment you click the mouse or pull the trigger, or that your mental processes that determine where to place the reticule may be off because, by chance, you didn't take all of the factors into account - all forms of "inherent chance" in the current combat mechanic?

Really, dude? I know you're not trolling, but this comparison is just absurd! If I don't get the mouse around quickly enough, that's not "chance": That's lack of skill. If the other person moves "unpredictably", that's his skill for moving, and lack of skill on my part for not compensating for it. If I didn't take everything into account, that's lack of skill on my part.

None of that is anything close to "chance." Everything you mentioned is directly in the control of the people playing. Just because it can be "simulated" with random numbers doesn't mean it's random.

If I hit my shots 80% of the time while moving full-speed and shooting at a mech partially hidden behind cover, that can be simulated with just an 80% chance to hit. But here's the difference: In actuality, every shot I miss, I miss because of a mistake I made. But in the simulation, I could do everything perfectly and miss because it's an 80% chance. More complicated numbers don't change this at all.

Quote

Should I or anyone else really think that you (or any human) actually know a universal about how people define any given word? If we shouldn't presume that all swans are white just because all the ones we've seen were... than ...

All that I would dare say is inherent in the word "shooter," when referring to any video game, is that things get shot at by something in the game.

"Game advertised as a shooter" - I'd be interested to know how PGI defined/defines "shooter."

PS: "Got link" for the advertisement of MWO as a shooter? I'm drawing a blank on that one.

So X-Wing vs. TIE-fighter could be accurately described as a "shooter", then? I shoot fireballs at goombas when I play Mario: Is Mario a shooter? You're grasping at straws, dude. Shooter is a very common tag when it comes to games, and the common factor is not "something shot at by another something".

Also, here's the link. http://mwomercs.com/landingpad

And if I recall correctly, the banner advertisements also advertise it as a shooter.

Quote

... as also people would be free to avoid the MW genre if they didn't want a first-person bipedal armored combat sim. It's not like there aren't alternatives atm. However, there *are no* mech games that have robust simulation of a 'mech's ability to bring it's weapons to bear on a target; and there's never been one for the BT setting. Never.

I sympathize with your plight. However, you merely reinforce the point that the game you are asking for is a break with everything that the MechWarrior franchise has previously been.

I understand you fine, dude, and I'm pretty sure you understand me. I think your game would be boring and frustrating as hell for most people currently playing: You think that it's worth tearing up everything PGI has done, on the off-chance that it's not. That's not going to happen, and I'm really happy it's not.

The game you want is not this game. Better luck next time.

[Pht]

Mackman, on 31 July 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

In this context, it's anything which has a % next to it. I don't think we're talking past each other on this point: I just think you're underestimating how abhorrent the core of your idea is to me.

Ok, so essentially, you're using it as a synonym for "hit percentage." I asked because there are many different meanings for the word "Random" - especially as it is used on these forums.

I suspect from the content of your posts that you don't understand what the core of my idea is.

Quote

How can you possibly believe the bolded? Let's lay out the scenario described here.

I'm moving at 70 mph, armed with, say, 6 medium lasers?

He, too, is moving at 70 mph, behind a low wall which obscures his legs and a tiny fraction of his CT from my view. He's turned to face me.

My reticule is resting dead center on his upper CT, and I fire.

In your system, because of all the factors above, I have a 72% hit rate. So one or two of my ML's miss entirely, one or two of them probably hit the arms, and the rest are scattered across the torso.

In the current system, I, the pilot, am already taking all the factors into account. And since I'm already aiming at the portion of the mech not obscured by cover, all of my shots hit exactly where I'm aiming

In the situation you yourself expanded on, whether I hit the mech I'm aiming at or not is reduced by 28%! So how can you possibly state that the ability to hit what you're aiming at is not reduced?

I can believe the bolded because it's true. That's how.

The rest don't "scatter" across the torsos. They hit in a bell curve percentage with most of them hitting the CT; right under the reticule.

"whether I hit the 'mech I'm aiming at" - ... context man, context. Hit the MECH - not the Component. The paragraph just below this you replied to is meant to go with this one.

Quote

Props for the LotR reference (although I don't know what "find" is doing in there).

What other tactics could there possibly be? The only viable tactic is to concentrate damage as much as possible, in the place it's going to be most effective. Searching for another tactic is absolutely futile.

... "Find" is there because it's in the original source.

What others could there possibly be? ... Just off the top of my head, almost every combat tactic in the TT that isn't possible now. Your own surprise at the very idea that there could be any other tactic is evidence of the one-dimensionality of the game and the series so far.

Actually simulating the 'mechs means you can, to the extent of your skill and knowledge, manage how easy or how hard it is for you to get hit; and I don't mean just torso twisting. The game becomes somewhat of a realtime chess-match (in the good sense) of pilots trying to maintain the edge of being able to hit their target, while their target as a harder time hitting them.

As it stands now, the ONLY way to do anything like this is to hill/wall hump or poptart - IE, use cover. You have NO options once you're where your opponent can simply place his reticule over your ct and blast you to shreds. There *is no other option.*

Quote

Really, dude? I know you're not trolling, but this comparison is just absurd! If I don't get the mouse around quickly enough, that's not "chance": That's lack of skill. If the other person moves "unpredictably", that's his skill for moving, and lack of skill on my part for not compensating for it. If I didn't take everything into account, that's lack of skill on my part.

None of that is anything close to "chance." Everything you mentioned is directly in the control of the people playing. Just because it can be "simulated" with random numbers doesn't mean it's random.

If I hit my shots 80% of the time while moving full-speed and shooting at a mech partially hidden behind cover, that can be simulated with just an 80% chance to hit. But here's the difference: In actuality, every shot I miss, I miss because of a mistake I made. But in the simulation, I could do everything perfectly and miss because it's an 80% chance. More complicated numbers don't change this at all.

Of course it's absurd. Reductio ad absurdum. The thing is, even though it's a conclusion you find absurd, it's still a valid application of the standard you posted.

"that's not chance, that's lack of skill" - if you miss or hit in the OP system, it's not due to chance, it's due to skill (at deciding when to fire AND skill with the reticule); if the other person moves in such a way to make himself hard to hit, that's not chance, [/b]that's his skill at making himself a hard target.[/b] - and if you shoot during bad conditions, that's because of a mistake you made.

"I could do everything perfectly and miss" - no. You couldn't. To "do everything perfectly" in the OP system is to have a +2 or lower modifier; 100% hit rate.

You're applying a defintion of "perfect" from a combat system that has different factors that add up to "perfect" - IE: you're doing apples to oranges.

Quote

So X-Wing vs. TIE-fighter could be accurately described as a "shooter", then? I shoot fireballs at goombas when I play Mario: Is Mario a shooter? You're grasping at straws, dude. Shooter is a very common tag when it comes to games, and the common factor is not "something shot at by another something".

Also, here's the link. http://mwomercs.com/landingpad

And if I recall correctly, the banner advertisements also advertise it as a shooter.

I'm not grasping at straws. I simply refuse to put words into their mouths when they haven't discussed a topic. They say what they say; not what I nor anyone else thinks they say.

Thanks for the link. IGN orginated that phrase, btw, even though PGI has it on their front page. Yes, I'm certain they wouldn't put it there if they didn't like it. I'm more interested in the developer's idea of what the MW genre is than what others say about their game.

Quote

I sympathize with your plight. However, you merely reinforce the point that the game you are asking for is a break with everything that the MechWarrior franchise has previously been.

I understand you fine, dude, and I'm pretty sure you understand me. I think your game would be boring and frustrating as hell for most people currently playing: You think that it's worth tearing up everything PGI has done, on the off-chance that it's not. That's not going to happen, and I'm really happy it's not.

The game you want is not this game. Better luck next time.

"I understand you fine...' - If you do, than why have you consistently managed to mischaracterize what I've posted?

It's not that you're disagreeing - it's that when you repeat things from the OP and my other posts back, they're something like an anime that has been through the cartoon-network censoring apparatus.

"Tearing up everything" - I already pointed out that this would not have to be done.

"better luck next time" - We've only had to put up with this insult since the 1980s, what the hell, what's another decade of false advertising in the MW genre?

Edited by Pht, 31 July 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Pht]

I really sort of find this odd. It appears that you're basically saying you don't like the thought of directly controlling the mech, instead of directly controlling the aim of the weapons -

Regardless of how utterly nonsensical directly aiming the weapons would be in the lore on virtually every level

- even though you still would have to use all of the reticule-manipulation skills you already do; even though you'd actually have to use more skill to mange your 'mech, even though outcomes in play are determined supremely by player skill and choices... and I think it also odd, because the exact form of argument you're using could be used against any weapon that in any way currently negatively affects hit % chances.

It's as if you enjoy the exact thing you say you hate; but because it's called "the weapons" instead of "the mech" ... that's somehow ... ok?

[Pht]

OP Major Edit bump!

[Threat Doc]

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Yes, there's a good bit of "IF" here, and I'm not sure if the DEV's could reply in any sort of detail without revealing all sorts of things that would be ... bad ... to reveal in public. Still, here it is. Swing, batter batter Swing...

I will admit to having TL:DR'd SOME of this, perhaps about 20%, but since I can actually place a percentage on this, it means there's a great deal of information, here, and it makes my posts look wimpy by comparison.

To be sure, I want all to understand I've not yet read anything but this first post, and I have to respond to another thread for a role-playing game I'm running prior to moving on, but I do intend to move on with this.

I must also say that about the only problem I have thus far with the aiming portion in the game is that most BattleMech of Damage Interpreter/Battle Computers (DIBC) that are between 50 and 200+ years old, and in the fluff, which Pht researched were second in importance only to the basic game rules, are not factored into this game. Perhaps the developers believe it will not be fair to force this fluff-generated rule on players in MWO, especially with the impending advent of the Clans, but that's one of the things that would make winning against the Clans so important a goal.

Video game developers have worked out of their games over the past two decades the ability to fail and still drive on with the game, and this is no different in MWO. Perhaps it's something that should be reinstated, especially since many of the game veterans have already gone from this game and, in all likelihood, will not return. The developers for MWO said they were going to work to put the rules, as closely as possible, of the tabletop game into MWO, and nearly two years on, and the game still in development because of ignorance of the rules, we know this to not be true.

They didn't listen, and now they're fighting to make the game viable. It is not, as yet, viable, or it would not still be in Closed Beta.

I intend to get back to this conversation soon.

[Pht]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I will admit to having TL:DR'd SOME of this, perhaps about 20%, but since I can actually place a percentage on this, it means there's a great deal of information, here, and it makes my posts look wimpy by comparison.

Thanks for taking the time man.

Quote

I must also say that about the only problem I have thus far with the aiming portion in the game is that most BattleMech of Damage Interpreter/Battle Computers (DIBC) that are between 50 and 200+ years old, and in the fluff, which Pht researched were second in importance only to the basic game rules, are not factored into this game. Perhaps the developers believe it will not be fair to force this fluff-generated rule on players in MWO, especially with the impending advent of the Clans, but that's one of the things that would make winning against the Clans so important a goal.

Sounds about right for the 3049-3051(ish) timeframe. Of course, the sphere never lost the ability to build the basic T&T suites... speaking of which, thanks to cray we actually have some usable language here. There's the battle computer (the T&T comp/suite) and the battle damage assessment computer (BDA). More in detail in section 10 here: http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/

On the fluff being secondary - not as a hard and fast rule. It depends on the nature of the fluff. Currently, the battlemech technology/operations writeup in TechManual actually is in place to clarify the rules (this is noted inside the canon spoiler).

About the clans: this being a persistent type game with a bit of economy, they could simply enforce the 2:1 ratio and clan equipment rarity factors.

Clan stuff is better, but it's darned for spehreoids to get, maintain, and supply.

Quote

Video game developers have worked out of their games over the past two decades the ability to fail and still drive on with the game, and this is no different in MWO. Perhaps it's something that should be reinstated, especially since many of the game veterans have already gone from this game and, in all likelihood, will not return.

I think people tend to miss that the first MW video games in the late 80's drew from the people who knew and loved the BT setting and boardgame. Probably pretty heavily; and that crowd is still around - some are still playing stuff in the setting, some thirty years later.

Quote

The developers for MWO said they were going to work to put the rules, as closely as possible, of the tabletop game into MWO, and nearly two years on, and the game still in development because of ignorance of the rules, we know this to not be true.

It's my opinion that they knew they should somehow follow the BT boardgame in some fashion, but I don't think they ever really seriously considered converting over the combat mechanic, and I suspect this is because they think/thought that the two basic comat mechanics in the combat system were simulating things that they actually weren't. Thus the comments about keeping the "flavor" ... but that they otherwise wouldn't follow the rules per se. IE: take the equipment/mech numbers and put them into the fps mechanic, instead of taking the numbers and the mechanic they were built in.

Quote

They didn't listen, and now they're fighting to make the game viable. It is not, as yet, viable, or it would not still be in Closed Beta.

I intend to get back to this conversation soon.

I think the game will do fairly decently.

It's my opinion that if they actually had simulated the battlemech's combat performace instead of using the vanilla FPS mechanic the game would, instead of doing decently, pretty much create it's own whole new niche and some very rabid players/fans (in F2P terms, a lot of "WHALES" who would stick around for as long as the game was viable... and the life-span of the MW games seems to have been around 10 years.

Edited by Pht, 06 August 2013 - 04:16 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Mchawkeye, on 30 November 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

ok...but +1 what?

1 out of 12, or about an 8.3% variance in the ability to hit. If it's expressed as a penalty in the board game, it means you would have an 8.3% harder chance of hitting your target, or the aperture of the Cone of Fire would be 8.3% larger.

Quote

on the TT, that's +1 to a dice roll within a very specific set of parameters ie: dice probability.

Dice probability is not appropriate for this game.

You're right, dice probability is not appropriate for this game, but those probabilities can be easily translated, as I've just done, into the probability of hitting in this game.

Quote

We get it. We really do. We understand already. it's just that some people think that that level of inaccuracy wouldn't be good for the game, and other, like me, feel that levels of accuracy should be defined as much by the nature of a simulator (+1 for moving? I already am, aren't I? hasn't that inherently affected my accuracy?) and a sense of what the table top suggests as opposed to running the numbers and stats from total warfare as be all end all.

Okay, but what Pht was trying to describe was how Pilot accuracy and BattleMech accuracy are not always in-sync. Yes, you as the pilot have your crosshairs over the top of your selected 'Mech and, yes, you are more than apt to be able to press the button to get your weapons, whether linked, chained, or individual, to fire on your opponent. However, your 'Mech has mass calculated along the length of the weapon to its terminus which affects how the servo-motors/actuators within each weapon operate effectively, and the age and damage (from simple movement to overt weapons fire) to the actuators will affect weapon accuracy. Therefore, your pilot can be 100% accurate, and there is an inherent accuracy to all weapons, but maintenance-related issues, computer linkage and fire control issues, and weapon weight, from cradle to terminus, must also be accounted for, and can be simulated by a variance, which is why a 7 to 15 meter tall walking weapons platform with a small pilot on top with aged computers and hard to fight fire control should have problems aiming.

So, let's take the 8.3% hard number I gave above and cut that variance to 4.5%, and then have the pilot's in the game have to fight that to get their accuracy, rather than point-and-click BS, and you'll have a game to actually challenge the supposed 'skills' many of you jokers claim to have.

[Threat Doc]

TheRulesLawyer, on 03 February 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Wow. Wall of text. As a TT player I totally appreciate you, and understand what you're getting at, but you probably lost 90%+ of the MW only players there.

Good, because their only interest should be in playing and mastering the giant hokey robot combat game as it's programmed. It is BECAUSE they don't appreciate the tabletop rules or the canon of the BattleTech universe that this game should NOT be programmed for them. It SHOULD be build for the TT players, for the rules and the canon and, if they want to play a game that will actually CHALLENGE them, then they should come and play with us. We TT players have been screwed for YEARS by the ****-poor iterations that have come before; however, now that we have something that was, when I last played it -last September- a really close approximation to the game I know and love, already, now I want it to be better, based more on canon. I am, instead, seeing all manner of variants that do not exist in the canon, to make money. I am, instead, seeing that I have master 1 'Mech before I can move into Regular status, 2 of the same Chassis to get Veteran status, and 3 of the same Chassis to get Elite status. Not only that, but to get Elite I also have to master a second 'Mech of the same weight class?! Come, now. I am, now, hearing about all of the highly unnecessary tweaking of armor and weapons in the game, when it shouldn't be necessary in the least. Make the numbers right, adhere more closely to the tabletop, and this game will play well, battles will actually last 15 or so minutes, and you won't have to make a bunch of silly objectives -CTF, Base Capture, Waypoint Capture- not related to BattleTech in any way to play in. Make the game with the modes listed in the Mercenary's Handbooks, explore the various combat books, such as the Fourth Succession War digests for strategies, maps, and combat possibilities instead of gimmick maps like that new one coming out, with all the volcanic activity. How about we have a game that's related not only to tactical prowess, but also strategic?

I will try to combine my future posts.

[Threat Doc]

Roland, on 19 July 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

You're basically describing what VATS does, but with the added step of moving the reticle over the mech.. but I'm not really sure exactly how that really works here. With VATS, based on what's happening, choosing different body parts to aim at give me different percentage chances of hitting.. but when I miss, it just whiffs completely.

Alright, I'm really tired of this stupid VATS argument. Your character physically stops time to activate VATS, selects which area of the target to hit and, once they've chosen their actions, they leave vats and the firing begins.

What Pht is recommending has NOTHING to do with stopping, it has to do with placing your crosshairs over the 'Mech, where you think you want to hit, and then the weapons on the 'Mech try to emulate what you want them to do. If you are moving faster, if your opponent is moving faster, if you have higher heat, if you're changing elevations, if there is forest in the way, if your BattleMech is not in tip-top shape -which, according to the lore, NO BattleMechs, not even Clan 'Mechs, are in tip-top shape-, etc., etc., ad nauseum, it affects how your weapons hit. Yes, you the pilot are aiming directly where you want to hit, and that's fine, but your BattleMech's computer may not be able to keep up based on conditions external to the 'Mech.

Capische?

Quote

In MW, when you miss, the shot still goes somewhere... So it's not like you can just roll the dice and decide whether it hits or misses, right? Aiming at the left torso, if I miss, has a chance to hit some other body part.

But that's the point. While Pht is NOT advocating for a Cone of Fire/Destruction, it would be the absolute best means of simulating the difference between pilot input and BattleMech output, with each bonus/penalty from the tabletop game accounted as a 4.5 - 8.3% shift in targeting ability PER POINT. In the tabletop, your roll 2d6 for everything; 1 out of 12 equals 8.3%, but since the minimum you can roll is 2 on 2d6, it's more like trying to hit on a 1 in 13, which is actually 7.7%. Each point at 7.7% for a bonus or penalty.

All MechWarrior's in the tabletop begin with a 4 for Gunnery Skill. Switching that over to a percentage system, it would be like starting them with an 8, instead, or a nominal Gunnery of 66.7%, and then calculating bonuses and penalties. I have outlined all of this in another post long buried, most certainly, concerning the bonuses, and it's a system that could work. To take this a step further, your Cone of Fire aperture start's at 33.3% of maximum aperture size, which would be, depending on the weapon and it's mounting, up to 90-degrees off-center at it's maximum size, and then it's modified percentage-wise for the penalties and bonuses.

Quote

It just seems like your dice rolling system isn't going to translate well... Basically, VATS kind of does it, but by essentially just removing most of the actual shooting and replacing it with an RPG style system, for folks who want that.

Again, this is not what Pht was trying to say, not in the least, and you should remove VATS from your argument, immediately. Hopefully, I've been able to facilitate that removal?

[Threat Doc]

blinkin, on 19 July 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

ok Pht you have been doing a lot of saying nope and that isn't how it works. it is pretty damned obvious that i am not the only one who does not see your special vision of this system. it also seems that most of us are "wrong" in pretty much the exact same way.

what i am saying here is that at some point you dropped the ball on the explanation. every time we ask you anything all we get is you telling us we are wrong and that it is a "mech simulator".

explain SOMETHING and we might not ridicule you quite so much.

i read your entire explanation and only stopped once you got into the numbers. EVERYTHING i have said has been based purely on your explanation. if my interpretations AND those of several other people are as off as you say they are, then you screwed up on the explanation at some point.

you keep throwing down the word "strawman" and then you never bother to clear anything up.

educate us.

Perhaps, Blinkin, I have been able to help clarify some things. I seem to understand Pht's argument perfectly well, and my reading is that many others, the one's you claim are sharing your arguments, understand it well enough to be able to ask questions, make comparisons, and are actually seeking clarification, rather than what you're doing, which is to badget Pht over nothing. Having been deep into this entire thread, from the beginning, for the past hour or so, I think, you're the one who threw down the strawman, not Pht. He has tried to explain to you, in relatively calm, if somewhat derisive -from time-to-time- terms everything you've asked for, but you only seem to want to bait.

So, if you're not keen to understand, not keen to pick up MegaMek or the board game, not keen to perform your own research so you might understand not only what SHOULD separate this game from all previous first-person shooters, whether MechWarrior or not, but also what makes BattleTech unique from all other mecha combat games -especially since the word mecha is TABOO to veterans of this universe, they are 'Mechs or BattleMechs, Battlefield Mechanisms- then perhaps you should retire to reading the discussion rather than trying to derail it with your constant inane babbling about how this doesn't work, won't work, or is the most boring possible outcome for the game, when you're not even willing to try it to see if you MIGHT just like it.

[Threat Doc]

Pht, on 22 July 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Because myomers are electrical motors, when they overheat they become more resistive (sluggish); and because the heat is never applied equally through the myomer, the muscle "twitches" too. This is one of the major reasons that 'mechs get less precise when they overheat.

It's funny how they work just like Human muscles, only on a much grander and less-controlled scale, huh?

Now, let's apply the fact that you, as a person in the real-world, are sitting in your own head, and you have nerves that go to your spine, which carry information translated by the brain as impulses telling you that certain things are going right or wrong with your extremities, and you can send instructions to those same nerves to activate the muscles you want to activate to do certain things like being able to run. When you are running, changing elevations (running up or down hill), when you have terrain between you and your target, can you shoot that target on the run, even when you're just barely out of being fully rested? NO ONE CAN, it's very nearly impossible, and the more of these factors you have in the way, the more difficult it's going to be. The best snipers in the world have to be in an excellent, supported position to be able to perform sniping maneuvers. When soldiers go to the gunnery range, do they run around and shoot at their targets, or are they in various positions, for both supported and unsupported fire, to knock down targets and get a score. When playing airsoft or paintball, how nearly-impossible is it to hit your target when you're walking from one place to another, or is it simply about suppressive fire. After a while of extreme physical activity, such as paintball, airsoft, running, performing on obstacle courses, your muscles heat up, your brain slows its own thinking down, you become sluggish and your muscles begin to shake, until you literally cannot move any further.

Now, let's talk about the M1A1 and A2 Abrams tanks... the driver, spotter, and gunner are only off the ground a few feet, at a nominal place of rest, and they can hit targets 26 miles away, accurately, with a tank moving 60mph. Of course, these are really only the top crews in heavily computer-assisted machines, and there are nominally three or four DATs in these tanks, a full crew for a single gun.

Okay, now let's put all of this together and place you as the brain at the top of a 7 to 15 meter tall lumbering war machine. First off, you're not directly connected to all the nerves of the 'Mech, you have a neural helmet that gives you contact with the various parts of your 'Mech. The most solid connection you can make is if you're bald, but if the cockpit heats up at all, it diminishes your physical ability with controlling your 'Mech, because though your head is nominally cooled -and, with the ancient cooling systems written into the lore, they don't really work all that well-, your body is still exposed to the elements inside your 'Mech. Your cockpit can become as hot as 210-degrees Fahrenheit if you're not taking care of things, and that means you're dropping off a gallon of sweat per minute, which means dehydration within five minutes. Your muscles are shaking, become sluggish, and do not operate as they're supposed to, as you continue your overt activity of fighting your 'Mechs controls in these types of conditions. Oh, now let's place you between 23 and 49.2 feet above ground level and see how disoriented this makes you. Have you ever been on a Tower of Terror ride, where you're taken 450 feet in the air, you can see everything around you, but your guts are absolutely in a twist? They're not in a twist because of how far you have to go, they're in a twist because being that high in the air is unnatural to the Human brain. The next time you go on a flight, see how your brain feels to you, how much natural trepidation you have?

How is the 'Mech performing... even though you're comfortably ensconced in your command couch, you are a single person relying on your computer to help you perform calculations for any number of weapon systems, not a single crew-served weapon as on the M1 tank. The computer you have is not EVEN as advanced as the M1 tank's computer, because that is LosTech you're dealing with, and it's old, rusty, and can't be readily fixed by your techs, any more. Now, how do you coordinate two or more weapons, even with a computer's help, to converge properly on a target? It takes time, and that's what Pht is trying to describe to you in the OP, and throughout this thread. It can be done, but it takes time.

I'm probably just talking to myself at this point, but I hope the comparison's actually help?

[Threat Doc]

Mackman, on 25 July 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

This wouldn't be at all fun for the people who currently enjoy MWO's current combat system (and according to PGI, they aren't lacking in that department). Indeed, the combat system is what's going to draw the non-TT crowd come release day, and that's the thing that will keep this game alive.

This game will not survive to its release date if PGI does not take into account those things that need to be done to make the game truly viable. If they truly want to make a "thinking man's shooter", they are doing it wrong. It is a shooter, but there is little thought involved other than, move in on your target, or on your enemy's base, sneak about if you can, shoot your way through if not, and try to cap.

The things Pht is recommending are longer games than are presently taking place, the appropriate use of 'Mechs in their various forms and movement styles, and the ability to truly think your way through. I'll guarantee you right now there's not one FPS runt out there that could stand up in a game that actually stuck to the whole of the tabletop rules. They would blow all of their ammo loads in no time, hitting on a very low percentage, while the tabletop gamer out-waits them and makes every single load of ammo count. It is not a thinking man's game in it's present form, period.

Go home, Mackman, you're drunk!

[Threat Doc]

Pht, on 30 July 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

CoF would give less reward for player skill and would result in nonsense gameplay (things missing or hitting in ways that are utter nonsense given the conditions at the time of the shot). It's all but impossible to implement a CoF system with any sort of depth that makes sense in the mech genre. There are too many factors to keep track of.

I absolutely disagree with your sentiment that CoF would give less reward. The idea is that it puts a circle around your reticule, which you must place and keep over your target and, through the very factors you and I have been talking about concerning the board game modifiers, makes the circle bigger or smaller. Thus, if your 'Mech is walking and your opponent is walking less than 43kph, and you have a clear field of fire to them at medium range for the weapon you're intending to fire, and your heat is in a manageable range that does not affect you or your DIBC, and you nominally have a 70% chance to hit, meaning your CoF is only 30% of maximum aperture -which I think should reside at about 10 meters at 100%-, but right now your 'Mech's ability to hit reduces your 70% Gunnery Skill to 56%, meaning your aperture is expanded to 44%, then your aperture is 1.5 times normal size and your shots should hit within that area.

If, on the other hand, your opponent is moving faster than 43kph, roughly perpendicular to your aiming path, that aperture will expand to 50% or greater. This movement rate has to be determined based on the position and movement path of both 'Mechs. Yes, this is horribly random, because your shots can go anywhere within that aperture, and beyond. They could miss your 'Mech, or hit a location in line with the projectile or beam traveling in that direction, and that's as it should be. Even now, when playing the game, if you're concentrating on moving perpendicular to your opponent, but your torso is twisted for the sake of a strafing maneuver, and you step up a hill you didn't remember being there, or you weren't paying close enough attention to your terrain because you wanted the hit, and you shots all go wide, driving your heat up, does that **** you off? That's randomness, as well, you have no control over that. What about that rock that's suddenly in your way? What about a friendly running right in front of your line of fire like a moron? There are a lot of things you are already unable to control.

In this case, a Cone of Fire/Destruction makes a great deal more sense than in ANY MMORPG or combat game I've ever played.

[Threat Doc]

Mackman, on 30 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

In your system, everything factors into a big calculator. Movement, speed, heat, cover, all go into a "to hit" modifier. With both targets still, at 0 heat, let's say a 95%-100% hit chance. With 50% heat, both mechs moving at 70 kph, one mech partially obscured behind a ridge: let's say 50%. The numbers aren't important: What's important is that you're introducing a significant element of chance into the game. Whether you hit the mech you're aiming at, and what component you hit, is now out of your control to a significant degree. Sure, there are things you can do to alleviate that (to a degree), but that doesn't change the element of inherent chance and randomness.

These things are what BattleTech inherently different from other games of type, and trying to ignore those elements turns the game into Heavy Gear, or most other shooters. I'm sorry, I would like something to be unique.

Quote

Does it not? Your system, which remains incredibly close to the source material, is by no means a shooter. It's much more a simulation, not a shooter. A shooter is universally understood to be something much, much different than what you interpret the source material to be.

This game was, originally, supposed to be a simulator, not a shooter. You have it wrong.

Quote

You are entirely correct about what I'm "upset" about. And in the way you phrase it, you yourself admit that in your system, the MechWarrior is not in direct control of his weapons.

This is NOT true, not in any point did he say so. What he said was the only factors being taken into account by PGI are the pilot factors, not also the 'Mech factors. I want you to take a sling shot/wrist rocket, attach two five-pound weights to it -to the wrist rocket or your hand, not anything above the wrist to your shoulder, one on either side, and then go get fifty nicely shaped half-inch rocks. Set up ten targets in your yard, walk back and forth, move up and down, stand on one leg, and other actions, and film it for YouTube posterity while you're at it. Hold your arm up for the entire time you're doing this, not resting once, firing off one rock, at various ranges, one per thirty seconds. That will get you 25 minutes holding up that sling shot and firing rocks while moving around at various ranges from your targets, preferably from various elevations, and let's see how you do?

Quote

Because PGI has a lot of people who enjoy the current combat mechanics, or enjoy them "potentially" (granted proper balance). "The lore", in this case, makes for a game that is significantly less fun to a significant chunk of PGI's player-base.

I would posit that you are dead wrong about this, because it's NEVER BEEN TRIED! I would further posit that, if people had to fight for hits, were forced to learn what PGI has taken enormous amounts of time to do, in making each 'Mech FEEL unique, they would love it even more, because it would actually turn the game into a "thinking man's shooter".

Quote

I love the feel of the mechs. I love the weight and heft of each mech and each weapon. I love how it feels to make a difficult shot and see the rounds impact the target. I love piloting PGI's interpretation of a Mech, where the MW is in much more control than in the lore.

In your combat system, there isn't enough for the pilot to do. There is only so much the pilot can do to impact the outcome of the match. That's my objection.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I was loving the feel of the 'Mech's, too, enjoying how each worked, how each walked, in its own right. I believe that PGI has translated Flying Debris' art into living art, and have done a beautiful job with each in the process. I do not agree with customization, and I do not agree with the game-play. LRMs felt right the last time I played, and I have loved LRMs since 1984 when I first picked up the game. However, the mechanics are too easy, there isn't enough for the pilot to do, now, other than point-and-click.

[Threat Doc]

Mackman, on 31 July 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

However, you merely reinforce the point that the game you are asking for is a break with everything that the MechWarrior franchise has previously been.

That is the point, and it SHOULD break with everything that's gone before. All of the previous MechWarrior computer games have been advertised as simulators, but none of them really were. This one COULD be, but for folks who want to argue that the game would not be fun, simply because they've never tried it, before.

PGI promised this game would be built as much as possible in-line with the tabletop version. Now, I understand that not everything is translatable into a computer game from a tabletop game, but PGI have actually made their own jobs so much harder by NOT sticking with much of what is relevant to the tabletop game. I would be willing to bet that EVERYONE who started playing this game in closed beta, from January-February 2012 until about September 2012, like me, would still be playing this game, trying to help define it and, most likely this game, with all four pillars intact, would already have been released, ON TIME, had the developers listened to us veterans out here. New people would come in, a training environment would have been established in the various units, and we would already be beating each other's brains out in the entirety of the system, with more people coming every day, had we been listened to, to begin with.

And, Mackman, you would NEVER have known better, would you? You would still be playing, because you would actually have something to gain skill in, rather than just drop in, find target, place cross hairs, push mouse button. In fact, I would be willing to bet you would be a huge proponent of the other way, the way Pht and I, and many many others have and are advocating, IF YOU NEVER KNEW THE DIFFERENCE.

I find your lack of willingness to try a different way disturbing.

[Threat Doc]

I want my positions to be understood, here...

1) I apologize about so many posts in a row, but I would find something I could think to respond to immediately with a great response, or I could have multi-quoted and lost the thread of what I was trying to say.

2) No one likes to be ignored, no one likes to be insulted, whether by other players or the developers, and ignoring the veterans of this game was just another iron-handed slap in the face to people who've supported this game universe and brought it, eventually, to PGIs doorstep. PGI and IGP owe the veterans of this game, the hundreds of thousands of dollars BattleTech brought into the various game companies that have had it, that made it a viable IP in the first place, and made it a potentially huge cash cow for both companies involved, and we were bloody ignored. Will I purchase Sarah's 'Mech, will I likely continue to play in the future? Yes to both; in fact, if you look in my signature block, you'll find a link there to my current plans for Armageddon Unlimited, next year. I do this because of extraordinary talents like Hayden, Flying Debris, and a lot of the staff at PGI and IGP, not because of the ****-poor decisions made by TPTB. Thank you very little.

3) I don't believe Pht's modifiers system, in essence separating the Pilot and BattleMech into two separate entities through the use of modifiers, rather than using a Cone of Fire/Destruction system, will be any easier to implement, but a system where the two are separate and modifiers are applied in the most natural way possible SHOULD be done. Having reticule shake due to jumping is a start, but it's not enough.

4) Customization between matches in a persistent world is a quick way to kill a game, so I hope PGI downgrades incoming cash to the point where MechWarrior's are forced to learn how to fight with their extant weapon systems and a setup that allows for modifiers on the back-end to have a true tactical and strategic effect.

5) I have now been working on this thread for four hours, I believe, and it's time for me to go do something else. Have a good night, expect no response from me until tomorrow.

~Colonel Kay Wolf, Armageddon Unlimited

[Mackman]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

And, Mackman, you would NEVER have known better, would you? You would still be playing, because you would actually have something to gain skill in, rather than just drop in, find target, place cross hairs, push mouse button. In fact, I would be willing to bet you would be a huge proponent of the other way, the way Pht and I, and many many others have and are advocating, IF YOU NEVER KNEW THE DIFFERENCE.

I find your lack of willingness to try a different way disturbing.

This is the only thing I'm going to respond to, because I've poured too much of my time into this thread already:

Short answer: I would have left the moment I died because the RNG gods decided it was time for my shots to miss.

Longer Answer: PGI wants this to be a competitive game, and there would be no quicker way to kill that than to implement the system proposed here. League of Legends, the largest (and still growing!) competitive game in the world has been systematically eliminating random elements from their game ever since I've been playing it (3+ years, now). This system goes against PGI's stated aims for the game, their balancing actions thus far, and the playerbase they're trying to appeal to. You can disagree with any or all of these things, but those are the criteria for what the game "should" be.