61 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 12 September 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

As soon as everyone controls a group of mechs and not just one and combat is resolved by dice rolls to hit, that'd work great.

If you want an FPS though and each player to 1 mech, unless you have some means of controlling how many players go to drop in which mech format (Clan/IS) and can change the fundamental human drives related to short-term reward vs long term success, especially in something with a game in which they are only mildly invested, we're going to have to give that one a pass.

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Use rewards, drop sizes, drop weights, game modes, victory conditions, and other "incentives" to manipulate human behavior.

[Mystere]

Astrocanis, on 13 September 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

Enforce teamwork and you have a point. Otherwise you are merely being insulting. The moment you enforce teamwork, there will be fallout.

Everybody that played an MMO had fun. Not everyone that played an MMO raided (group play). If you want to enforce raiding, then you'll lose those that don't. In the meantime, please try to be civil. If you had a point, you lost it the moment you went negative.

[edit] So, who is going to sign up for a less lucrative style of play? Any volunteers?

To make infowar even marginally useful, they need to build other game infrastructure to support it.

1. In the current game, how do you maximize C-Bills and XP? They need to totally rework that.
2. In the current game, does PSR take into account the weight class, chassis or role of the mech?
3. In the current game, are there any pilot skills related to info or role warfare?
4. In the current game, are there any modules besides ECM/Radar Derp that are effective? There are 3: which ones would you say are effective enough to be desirable?
5. In the current game, is the terrain varied enough to make infowar/scouting useful? If so, why is scouting so rare? (see question 1).

Until these, and probably several more, are at least recognized if not outright addressed, infowars in stillborn.

As I replied to you in another thread:

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

I would counter that the Information Warfare component of the diamond is woefully underdeveloped, hence people currently not seeing it as useful.

But a few simple and not so simple things can help improve on that:

• wide-area smoke/incendiary modules
  
• flammable environment
  
• ECM disabling IFF (like it used to)
  
• range detection asymmetry (as they are proposing now)
  
• making TAG visibility subject to atmospheric conditions
  
• making TAG immune to ECM outside of bubble
  
• active/passive sensor system
  
• mines (area denial is information denial)

I might be able to list more once these now 10 days of intermittent headaches comes at an end.

[oldradagast]

Livewyr, on 12 September 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

Infotech is kind of pointless, courtesy of ECM.

ECM stealth meant:
LRMs too unreliable to bring, use Directfire.
Using directfire means use your eyes. Soo... Info tech is a useless facet.. because ECM nuked info warfare. (And is still pulsing...)

Exactly. As long as ECM toggles off all info warfare, ECM and direct fire weapons still win. All this info warfare silliness does is two things:

- Allow a lame "out" for useless mechs. "Why, sure your mech has low DPS and terrible durability, but it can acquire targets really fast! Too bad it can't do anything about them once acquired."

- Make LRM's even less useful, which is an impressive feat in itself. "Oh, look, there's a bad guy. Time to wait for my for my Unbalanced mech to get target info... and locking info... and I'm already dead thanks to a bunch of Gauss rounds..."

Fun! Right...

Sure, sure... all this could matter a bit more in a game full of smoke bombs, flammable environments, various sensor types, and so on... but we're talking about a game company that can't even figure out how to switch ammo types on a weapon (LBX's) and who still hasn't fixed the Pinpoint skill, etc. Don't get your hopes up, folks.

Edited by oldradagast, 13 September 2015 - 09:26 AM.

[Mystere]

Here are a few more things to bring back:

• remove missile warning
  
• make Betty warn that you have been targetted. (yes, it's to troll the enemy )

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2015 - 09:33 AM.

[Livewyr]

Commissar Aku, on 13 September 2015 - 06:08 AM, said:

BAP? tag? Using spotters and team work is OP. You should try it sometime instead of crying about overpowered systems that are only overpowered if you are an alpha firing ******* and/or CoDpiece.

Rather than being insulting, how about you explain to me what Team Work that ECM mech is using to achieve it's umbrella cloak?
Who else does he need to have with him to make his ECM work?


Anything? Anyone?

[Astrocanis]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

As I replied to you in another thread:

The flaw is that you are still working with game mechanics vis-a-vis mechs and equipment, not the overall game environment. And that is doomed to fail. You cannot create role warfare in this game by simply adding gazintas and gazontas into it. I see we're not going to meet in the middle. You think adding gadgets will do the trick. I don't.

[Mystere]

Livewyr, on 13 September 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

Rather than being insulting, how about you explain to me what Team Work that ECM mech is using to achieve it's umbrella cloak?
Who else does he need to have with him to make his ECM work?

Anything? Anyone?

You're all looking at it from the wrong POV.

The teamwork that needs to happen is on the other team, to designate that ECM carrier priority #1 and neutralize him.

The ECM carrier's team, on the other hand, is expected to anticipate, and more importantly stop, any threats against their ECM.

Gee, guys. This is not even on the same level as the Kobayashi Maru.

[Mystere]

Astrocanis, on 13 September 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

The flaw is that you are still working with game mechanics vis-a-vis mechs and equipment, not the overall game environment. And that is doomed to fail. You cannot create role warfare in this game by simply adding gazintas and gazontas into it. I see we're not going to meet in the middle. You think adding gadgets will do the trick. I don't.

Read my words again, but carefully this time around.

I did not say my list would "do the trick". I said they were things that "can help improve" information warfare -- which is what we were talking about, in both threads.

We were not talking about role warfare. There is a big difference between the two.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 09:01 AM, said:

I manipulate human behavior for a living. You can briefly pay people to lose and they'll show up to collect that pay to lose, but they'll stay only long enough to collect they pay, at which point they'll go spend it on what they want.

At a fundamental level humans have a short-term response to success/failure and punishment/reward. If player A dies 3 times for every 1 kill he gets in a FPS game, even if his team 'won the match' he's experienced 3 failures for each success because that 1 mech that he is playing, his presence in the game, got destroyed.

Also he didn't lose because the other player was better - he lost because the challenge was rigged for the other guy to kill him more easily. What team of complete strangers he doesn't care about and may never see again won the match isn't relevant. What is relevant is his performance.

The reality of this is played out, constantly and repeatedly, in the pug queue already. It is why we have PSR instead of Elo. People care more about their own stats than the success of the team.

So you're saying you try to bribe people to go play fodder for as long as they can take it before they spend their gains on getting a better Clan mech, so they can go back to mowing down the fodder themselves? So that as a player becomes wealthier and earning rewards is less important than the fun they're having (and killing another player is more fun than being killed by another player) they spend more and more time as Clans?

Your ideas here to make this work are absolutely and fundamentally flawed. If this was some one-off event or a game-mode you can elect it might work, sometimes, for special events. As the overall game balance where everyone is required to play in an environment that is fundamentally slanted to one side killing the other side more often 1v1 is so far beyond doomed I confess - I struggle to see where you can look at that and think tens of thousands of people would play that with an expectation of spending 70% of their time as the fodder.

Have you never played MW:O, or any other big population multiplayer game before?

[Astrocanis]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

Read my words again, but carefully this time around.

I did not say my list would "do the trick". I said they were things that "can help improve" information warfare -- which is what we were talking about, in both threads.

We were not talking about role warfare. There is a big difference between the two.

Information warfare has no context outside of roles. It is meaningless, particularly as it has been shown by the current quirk horror that the intent is to create mechs whose builds are context specific to information warfare. By definition (at least as far as my very limited intellect can discern), that means role warfare. We are going to disagree. You are going to continue to state that I don't read closely enough to parse "can help improve" something that I believe is a fundamental flaw in your approach. In any case, you are not going to go through any change in your thought process as you haven't, pretty much, in any thread you participate in. I will stop responding at this point to save us both a bit of frustration.

For what it's worth, I don't think you are stupid or bad. I just think you believe you are the smartest person in the room and pretty much anything you say is fact and those that don't agree didn't read well enough or simply don't get it.

Carry on.

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

I manipulate human behavior for a living.

I'm glad to know. I was starting to feel lonely thinking I'm the only one here who likes to **** with people's minds.

MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

Have you never played MW:O, or any other big population multiplayer game before?

<I am assuming you actually meant "Have you ever played any other big population multiplayer game before?">

Actually, yes.

Take Rift for example. Even before release, many were already saying that having factions was not a good idea because people would always flock to the side perceived to be winning. And so as predicted, when one side was beginning to win handily, players started migrating to that side in mass numbers. But, curiously enough, a not quite insignificant number decided to also move in the opposite direction. They still found a lot of fun (and so did I -- I was one of those who played on both sides using different characters), especially because we were not running short of enemies to fight against and resources to obtain. After a while, we saw an influx of more players coming from the other side again.

As such, with regard to MWO, I expect something similar to happen. And with professed diehards on both sides, I am cautiously optimistic.

Also, are you saying that a larger IS drop weight in CW was not a good incentive? How about game modes and victory conditions skewed for the "weaker" side? Are you certain none of those will work?

[Mystere]

Astrocanis, on 13 September 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

Information warfare has no context outside of roles. It is meaningless, particularly as it has been shown by the current quirk horror that the intent is to create mechs whose builds are context specific to information warfare. By definition (at least as far as my very limited intellect can discern), that means role warfare. We are going to disagree. You are going to continue to state that I don't read closely enough to parse "can help improve" something that I believe is a fundamental flaw in your approach. In any case, you are not going to go through any change in your thought process as you haven't, pretty much, in any thread you participate in. I will stop responding at this point to save us both a bit of frustration.

For what it's worth, I don't think you are stupid or bad. I just think you believe you are the smartest person in the room and pretty much anything you say is fact and those that don't agree didn't read well enough or simply don't get it.

Carry on.

You can have information warfare even without hard-defined roles for it. You just need tools to allow you to do so. And just because MWO does not have roles built-in does not mean players cannot choose to play a role if they so desire.

And no, information warfare is not the same as role warfare. I think you're confusing the two ... a lot.

And finally, yes, I will carry on playing the roles I want in-game, even if MWO does not have any built-it in facility for it. But who knows, if they are successful this time around, they will finally be built in.

Edited by Mystere, 13 September 2015 - 08:09 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

I'm glad to know. I was starting to feel lonely thinking I'm the only one here who likes to **** with people's minds.




<I am assuming you actually meant "Have you ever played any other big population multiplayer game before?">

Actually, yes.

Take Rift for example. Even before release, many were already saying that having factions was not a good idea because people would always flock to the side perceived to be winning. And so as predicted, when one side was beginning to win handily, players started migrating to that side in mass numbers. But, curiously enough, a not quite insignificant number decided to also move in the opposite direction. They still found a lot of fun (and so did I -- I was one of those who played on both sides using different characters), especially because we were not running short of enemies to fight against and resources to obtain. After a while, we saw an influx of more players coming from the other side again.

As such, with regard to MWO, I expect something similar to happen. And with professed diehards on both sides, I am cautiously optimistic.

Also, are you saying that a larger IS drop weight in CW was not a good incentive? How about game modes and victory conditions skewed for the "weaker" side? Are you certain none of those will work?

So lets clarify something -

there is a world of difference between a gamemode and an overall game balance choice.

As a game-mode I'd play a stock vs clans mode from time to time. You'd need to do it as events but that would work.

Overall game balance however is saying that's it - that's the only real game experience you ever get. That's how it plays, all the time. For that to work you need a significant population disparity - in favor of the inferior group. That's not what people do.

Also this is a FPS/MOBA and its behavioral rewards are tied to 7-15 minute segments of play with quasi-strangers. MMOs, conversely, have a completely different social construct. The overall losses of your faction don't equate to your personal losses day over day. If playing Rift involved being in an arena where the winning factions get huge advantages over losing factions and the losing factions only experience of gameplay was getting steamrolled match after match, even if they counted a 'win' as only losing by a margin less than 50%.

That's what you're talking about here. That the only way to play MW:O is either Clans, where a KDR of 1.5 is bad/barely breaking even and playing IS means a 0.8 KDR is doing very well. That's it. Your two choices. Get killed all the time or kill other people all the time, win or lose the match.

For this to work you need MOST players to VOLUNTEER to always be the 'losing' side. Again, all telemetry on player behavior shows they'll lose a match for higher KDR. Even if you bribe the crap out of people you'd be hugely skewed to have 40% of players play that role. That's the exact opposite of the population preference you need. The bribed folks will spend that money to get into the Clan side of that equation. This creates a perpetual drain of veteran players to the OP side, so it's vets stomping nubs.

How does that work for nub retention? It's not going to work. Just no way to see that working long term as an overall game design decision. Population disparity game balance decisions for PvP games is not a new discussion. This sort of balancing doesn't exist in online games for PvP/FPS/MOBA environments for a reason.

[Livewyr]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 06:45 PM, said:

Gee, guys. This is not even on the same level as the Kobayashi Maru.

I think James used MWO ECM to defeat the Kobayashi Maru...


(Thank you for that reference, I loved it.)

[Fate 6]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

It really isn't. Just nerf lasers through heat. Make them hot. That one change would open up worlds of balance.

Yeah, lets make all lasers like the PPC and have nobody use it.

[Lily from animove]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 September 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

It really isn't. Just nerf lasers through heat. Make them hot. That one change would open up worlds of balance.

at leats it would solve the light problem, since no lights would exist anymore, due to laserseing the only working non heavy weapons available for them.

dude really?

[nehebkau]

Wolf Clearwater, on 12 September 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

Increasing time to kill is good for the game. The current rate this is set at is ridiculous. Should all the weapon quirks go? Probably not, but overall this is a good first pass. Bring back tiny weapon quirks, nothing more that 5-10% max when stacked.

The sensor changes are the right way to go. Not sure I am sold totally on the ranges yet, but a good start. Scouting should be a valid role, not just mindless weapon key mashing. This is not CoD with robots.

Good start PGI, I would like to see what comes next.

See below for rabid frothing at the mouth, I am sure there will be plenty.

I agree with you in principle, the problem with information warfare is that the very foundations of the game are not designed to have any meaningful information warfare. For there to be valid information warfare all the maps and modes of the game will have to be completely changed -- even the new maps! So putting in information warfare quirks into a game where the are irrelevant to the underlying game-play is ... pointless?

I mean really, every map you know where the enemy starts and, for the most part, where they are going and the group that sticks together is the group that usually wins -- explain to me where information warfare fits into that meta.

Edited by nehebkau, 14 September 2015 - 08:05 AM.

[Commissar Aku]

1. You guys understand that the 'arcade mode' isn't supposed to be the real game right?
2. ECM is so easily countered that it is almost a waste of tonnage in CW.
3. The game as it stands is so unbalanced that it is getting not fun to play.
4. This isn't going to be the only pass, and IF it becomes apparent the weapon quirks are actually needed to balance the game they will put them back in.
5. Why all the butthurt? I don't get it, they are trying to make the game better but instead of giving feedback all I see is crying about a change, every person who has presented anything in any form other than crying about the change has agreed with it to some degree or another. It isn't going to be perfect the first try, nothing is, that is why pencils have erasers, and there is a delete key on your keyboard. FFS.


And since you are rage trolls I will put this into perspective, Beagle active probe costs less tonnage, works at a longer range, and on top of countering ecm it also speeds up lock times and info times, making it better than ECM. Tag negates ECM, it has less tonnage, works at a longer range, and not only counters ECm but also reduced lock on time and info gathering. ECM has the same tonnage, works at the same range and can hide your mechs or counter ECM. There is no excuse for all this bitching about ECM be less of a self centered ******* and take any one of the options above. Or better yet learnt to aim without locks and be aware of your surroundings, then all you need to do is learn to aim, aside from the myst lynx the ECM is in the left torso. Easy.

[Livewyr]

Commissar Aku, on 14 September 2015 - 09:25 AM, said:

2. ECM is so easily countered that it is almost a waste of tonnage in CW.
Tell me you didn't say that with a straight face...

And since you are rage trolls I will put this into perspective, Beagle active probe costs less tonnage,
Already wrong on a very simple fact. They both weight 1.5 (IS) or 1 (Clan) ton each. Same crits, same weight.

works at a longer range,
it Counters at longer range, ECM makes you untargetable outside 200m (give or take 30m for equipment.)

and on top of countering ecm it also speeds up lock times and info times,
More inaccuracy- it speeds up info time, not lock time.

making it better than ECM.
Really? Being able to get info faster is better than preventing info and locks at all? Strange, you are.

Tag negates ECM,
While constantly pointing at the ECM mech without losing LoS.

it has less tonnage,
(less tonnage for IS) It takes up an energy hardpoint. (Hint: Reducing overall firepower.)

works at a longer range,
It will break through out to 750. Have you tried tagging and locking the ECM mech at 775m? (Who has better range?)

and not only counters ECm but also reduced lock on time and info gathering.
That's nice. (Being unlockable in "all other" circumstances beats being able to lock something faster while training on it.)

ECM has the same tonnage, works at the same range and can hide your mechs or counter ECM.
And it does all of that right out of the mechlab. The only thing you need to adjust is which mode... if you're feeling generous to your team.

There is no excuse for all this bitching about ECM be less of a self centered ******* and take any one of the options above.
Except that you are wrong in nearly all statements above.

Or better yet learnt to aim without locks and be aware of your surroundings, then all you need to do is learn to aim, aside from the myst lynx the ECM is in the left torso. Easy.
Unless you happen to like LRMs or not being poptarted by a mech that sees you before you see it by mechanic.

I just went ahead and responded in the quote... easier to dismantle that way.

You managed to be flatly incorrect in the first ECM assertion.


EDIT: To make it crystal clear why it is overpowered, even with all the counters.
ECM: Undectable outside 200 meters. (Disruption is of little value, actually works against ambush ECM.)
BAP: Counters ECM inside 360 (or something like that) (Has no effect on ECM outside that range.)

TAG: Breaks through out to 750.. but must constantly be trained on the ECM mech, with LoS. Also provides a bright red line leading back to the mech with TAG, with center torso exposed for the duration of the beam.
TAG makes ECM mech targetable, TAG also makes TAG Mech targetable, AND present CT constantly.
ECM: Just equip it and it works.

And just a little bit of preventative medicine:
NARC: Counters an ECM mech If it is attached to the ECM mech. Is countered by any local ECMs. Must hit the ECM mech, range of 450-600 (plus a module) Takes a missile hardpoint. Does no damage, travels at missile speed...
ECM: Equip it, and it works.

Does that make it any clearer to you?

Edited by Livewyr, 14 September 2015 - 04:54 PM.

[oldradagast]

MischiefSC, on 13 September 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

So you're saying you try to bribe people to go play fodder for as long as they can take it before they spend their gains on getting a better Clan mech, so they can go back to mowing down the fodder themselves? So that as a player becomes wealthier and earning rewards is less important than the fun they're having (and killing another player is more fun than being killed by another player) they spend more and more time as Clans?

Yep - see also Community warfare and the fact that the only reason anyone other than top tier groups bother with it anymore is if they can be bribed with a mechbay or something for a weekend event. But that was another failure where people were supposed to start as cannon fodder and then "graduate" to mowing down cannon fodder, what with the lack of match-making, lopsided maps, and utter idiocy of it all.

In short, such attempts at "balance" have failed before, so I can't imagine why anyone would want to try them again.