122 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

Rhaythe, on 17 September 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

Speaking of canon, Harebrained games released another art piece.



Alex *has* to love that his redesign artworks are being used as a unified base like this.

I love that his art is being used. Should cut down alot on that game's release. I await that game.

[Rhaythe]

Pretty sure that's a Harasser on the right of that lead Scorpion. That is one freaking fun little tank.

Unless you're facing them. Then those little ******** just don't die.

...frickin' +4 movement modifiers...

[MischiefSC]

Balancing a fps based on a dice roll strategy game is part of what has balance so screwed in this game.

To compound that by putting it in the wost, most clowntastically unbalanced stretch of the games lore was just icing.

the brutal reality we've spent 3 years trying to avoid is that we need to get Dark Ages balance with 3050 assets, tuned for fps moba and the realities of a 1 for 1 pvp environment instead of the pve each player runs x mechs tt environment.

[Pjwned]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

What I'm wondering is: if we have this Armor Value jump for 'Mechs, then why has PG resorted to nerfing/buffing certain weapons? Wasn't the doubled armor supposed to fix things?

Doubled armor value was a separate issue from attempting to balance the clans by not making them overpowered, which has clearly been their intent for clans from the start.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

MischiefSC, on 17 September 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Balancing a fps based on a dice roll strategy game is part of what has balance so screwed in this game.

To compound that by putting it in the wost, most clowntastically unbalanced stretch of the games lore was just icing.

the brutal reality we've spent 3 years trying to avoid is that we need to get Dark Ages balance with 3050 assets, tuned for fps moba and the realities of a 1 for 1 pvp environment instead of the pve each player runs x mechs tt environment.

That's why the previous MW titles haven't pitted IS against clans at the start of the invasion on the scale that MWO has. I stick by the notion that PGI should have stuck with the pre-Invasion IS tech or post-FedCom Civil war.

[Stelar 7]

@ST Job,

You said you had not heard why take top values don't work in MWO. That is no reasons. I'm here to offer reasons. Phone post so apologies for spelling.

Table top is an abstraction of mech combat. The players have very little control of the mechs they are somewhere in a space 100 meters across. So shooting is pretty random.

MWO is much less abstract. Random hit is derived from shooter and target motion not an abstract table. Case in point it was possible to hit specific locations at great difficulty in tabletop and that shot got much easier if your target was immobile just like it is easy in MWO when targets hold still.

To make MWO work with TT would require us to go to a greater degree of abstraction.

The TT game that more closely resembles MWO play is Solaris 7. It had faster firing weapons and messed more with heat. It even had coolent injectors.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why doesn't TT mechanics translate well into a FPS?

Because no one wants to wait 10 seconds for weapons to fire in a FPS. Also nobody wants random hit locations in a FPS. Rate of fire and aiming/convergence are pretty much the two biggest problems MWO faced while translating from tabletop.

Quote

If you lived through the PPC meta you wouldn't be asking these questions.

This. But they nerfed PPCs in the wrong way. The problem with PPCs was the pinpoint damage not the projectile speed. PGI has a very bad habit of not being able to identify the right problem.

Instead of making PPCs useless by nerfing projectile speed they shouldve just given all PPCs the same splash damage mechanic as the CERPPC. That wouldve fixed the weapon without making it completely useless.

Edited by Khobai, 17 September 2015 - 01:54 PM.

[Satan n stuff]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:

Disclaimer: the way my rant is formatted might provoke people to give me answers. I don't want answers. What I want is discussion. In other words, when planning on replying to a question, I'd appreciate a 1) "I agree or disagree with you" segment; 2) "I agree or disagree with PG" segment; and if you disagree with part 2, then a "this is my idea as to how the game should be balanced" segment.

Nice going trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with you right off the bat, I'm sure that's going to be conductive to a fruitful discussion.

[ApolloKaras]

Satan n stuff, on 17 September 2015 - 01:52 PM, said:

Nice going trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with you right off the bat, I'm sure that's going to be conductive to a fruitful discussion.

eh its been pretty good.

[MischiefSC]

Previous mw titles on the pc were pve - because that's what 3050 was balanced for. While I'm not a big fan of Dark Ages visuals or overall setting the balance for pvp is far superior.

This game is pvp. A fps moba. My piloting and gunnery skills are not modifiers to a 2d6 roll and my weapons hit what is under my crosshairs. You flat out can not use tabletop as a direct translation. We've been close to it and it was broke as hell. We want to give all weapons a universal 10 second cooldown and stock only builds? Have all accuracy determine by rng? Fall down at random whenever you take 20 pts or more within 10 sec? Fall down at random after using jjs to change elevation?

[Novakaine]

"Mommy why are the stinky clanky lazor boys crying again?'
"It's not nice Judy to call people names, come along now and don't stare at the clan people."

[stjobe]

Khobai, on 17 September 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Because no one wants to wait 10 seconds for weapons to fire in a FPS.

So don't? Increase rate of fire, but decrease damage per shot and heat per shot accordingly. That was the error PGI made, to keep damage and heat per shot the same while increasing rate of fire.

Edit: Also keeping dissipation at the TT rates which messed up the heat system just as bad as the rate of fire messed up the armour system.

Khobai, on 17 September 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Also nobody wants random hit locations in a FPS.

Are you claiming there are exactly zero shooter games out there with e.g. a movement-based cone of fire? Because that's not what I've heard.

There's been numerous ideas about how to decrease pin-point accuracy in MWO and make it a bit more like BT; from cone of fire over forced chain-fire to targeting computer load. All of these are viable solutions to a problem PGI (and some of their fans) claim is unsolvable.

Edit: Also, there's a whole range of states between "perfect accuracy" and "totally random"; one can lean more towards one or the other, but MWO is currently at one end of the scale.

Khobai, on 17 September 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Rate of fire and aiming/convergence are pretty much the two biggest problems MWO faced while translating from tabletop.

Yes, because they did it wrong. That doesn't mean it cannot be done, it just means PGI were dumb enough to do it wrong.

Edited by stjobe, 17 September 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Rhaythe, on 17 September 2015 - 11:21 AM, said:

Speaking of canon, Harebrained games released another art piece.



Alex *has* to love that his redesign artworks are being used as a unified base like this.

I see 3 mechs in that image. The foreground is obviously a King Crab.
on the left I am guessing a Griffin due to the asymmetrical shoulder guards (which don't make any sense because it can mount a missile pod on either side).

But the one of the right is a mystery to me.
Best guess is a Locust, I am just not used to them being scaled correctly.

[stjobe]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 17 September 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

But the one of the right is a mystery to me.
Best guess is a Locust, I am just not used to them being scaled correctly.

Yeah, it's a Locust.
Without Variable Geometry.
Scaled correctly.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Khobai, on 17 September 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Because no one wants to wait 10 seconds for weapons to fire in a FPS. Also nobody wants random hit locations in a FPS. Rate of fire and aiming/convergence are pretty much the two biggest problems MWO faced while translating from tabletop.

In WoWS I shoot once per 35 sek, hit location is pretty random, but greatly influenced by skill. Your argue is a myth, just same as those about not existing asymmetrical games that are so unfunny. Yet they do exist and are one of must fun around.
"aiming/convergence" thing could be fixed and translated smart enough from TT, you got hundreds of pages of good ideas about it around. Here you got one for instance one of better and detailed presented http://www.qqmercs.c...ence-and-clans/
or convergence could be linked to locking mechanism
or fixed convergence
or search button
you got tons of nice ideas covering this particular problem.
So really, don`t blame anything else but PGI.

[Davers]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 17 September 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

I see 3 mechs in that image. The foreground is obviously a King Crab.
on the left I am guessing a Griffin due to the asymmetrical shoulder guards (which don't make any sense because it can mount a missile pod on either side).

But the one of the right is a mystery to me.
Best guess is a Locust, I am just not used to them being scaled correctly.

According to the Kickstarter page it's a Jenner.

[Slepnir]

Kodyn, on 17 September 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Oh look, yet another guy who thinks TT rules can translate easily and successfully into an online FPS...

Don't stare as we drive past kids...

Oh look it can and it does work, it's called MWLL, where ther is no ghost heat, pinpoint alpha, charge mechanic gauss(just an 11 second cooldown with a faster projectile speed, making it a great sniper weapon, but horrible in brawls, same for PPCs).

MWO is NOT even trying to be battletech anymore, russ wants an arena shooter with big stompy robots instead of infantry. play MWO for what it is, if you want lore or immersion wait on the new battletech kickstarter or play LL.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

or Lobby for Stock Mode

[Novakaine]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 17 September 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

I see 3 mechs in that image. The foreground is obviously a King Crab.
on the left I am guessing a Griffin due to the asymmetrical shoulder guards (which don't make any sense because it can mount a missile pod on either side).

But the one of the right is a mystery to me.
Best guess is a Locust, I am just not used to them being scaled correctly.

Tanks and mixed Armor and Infantry yahoo!

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Khobai, on 17 September 2015 - 01:49 PM, said:

Because no one wants to wait 10 seconds for weapons to fire in a FPS. Also nobody wants random hit locations in a FPS. Rate of fire and aiming/convergence are pretty much the two biggest problems MWO faced while translating from tabletop.



This. But they nerfed PPCs in the wrong way. The problem with PPCs was the pinpoint damage not the projectile speed. PGI has a very bad habit of not being able to identify the right problem.

Instead of making PPCs useless by nerfing projectile speed they shouldve just given all PPCs the same splash damage mechanic as the CERPPC. That wouldve fixed the weapon without making it completely useless.

I wish they would have just pro-rated the damage instead of doubling armor.

For instance, have the PPC fire once every 5 seconds, for 5 damage, and 5 heat. Still sticks to the 10 damage for 10 heat in 10 seconds of TT and it reduces crushing alphas.