122 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

They "don't count" because they run counter to your argument, you mean. There's plenty of FPS games on the market today that use non-perfect accuracy to simulate the inherent inaccuracies of both weapon and soldier. Those games are generally referred to as "realistic".

To be frank, most FPS games do "realistic" rather poorly.

The only two games that had realistic recoil I remember playing were DoD:S and ArmA. Guns have predictable recoil that skilled marksman can compensate for that 99% of FPS games totally ignore.

[Black Ivan]

I really wish PGI would have stuck to TT canon, if they would many problems would have stayed away, other would be still be here. My greatest concern is they broke some mechanics like the heat system to the point that it is an abomination and creates many problems, the same with ECM. It combines multiple systems into a single package that would usually weight 6+ tons.

Sized hardpoints and weapon limitations per hardpoint would have worked wonders to counter the boating and meta problems as well.

Edited by Black Ivan, 17 September 2015 - 10:36 PM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Archangel Dino, on 17 September 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

"Stupidly OP it wouldn't even be funny"? How so? Are you implying that the Gauss Rifle is "stupidly OP" because it deals 15 damage at once?

Or perhaps the PPC is "stupidly OP" because it deals 10 damage at once?

I don't see how a 0.56sec laser would be "stupidly OP" judging from comparative weapon mechanics.

All you have to do is increase the cooldown time for the ER-LARGE LASER, as it should be equal to a PPC according to Solaris VII rules.

a 4 ton, 1 slot, long range, hitscan weapon with a 0.5s duration would be INSANELY OP. If you dont realise that then you have literally no cause to be speaking about balance.

Hell, you even think that increasing duration emulates increased accuracy, when it is actually the complete reverse.

Opinion not relevant because braincells either not engaged or not present.

[Mcgral18]

Slepnir, on 17 September 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

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.

Now, MWLL avoided all that by not using any TT stats at all. The Atlas has more armour than the Whale, was it around 20 000?

The HGauss deals 2400 damage at optimal range, things like that.


They didn't stick to TT construction either, ignoring Crit Slots and even tonnage to balance individual mechs. Lack of mech lab allowed for that.


MWO started with false values, which has lead to what we have. 3x damage, AC90s and an AC100, 3x heat, 1x dissipation...

[redacted]

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 18 September 2015 - 03:50 PM.
Insults

[LookUpGaming]

Long Story Short.

Canon was a mistake. Jordan Wiesman said if they had it to do over again they would have set the Clans up completely different and making them so OP was a mistake.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

That's an answer to why PGI couldn't do it, not why it cannot be done by someone competent.

When we have to deal with who we have, not some fantasy developer, that IS why it cant be done.

[stjobe]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 September 2015 - 06:24 AM, said:

When we have to deal with who we have, not some fantasy developer, that IS why it cant be done.

Sure. You just missed that my question wasn't related to my answer (you also quite sneakily quoted them in reverse order; the answer was the first post, the question was a semi-related second post).

The answer detailed a few reasons why PGI's game looks like it does (some silly mistakes and a lack of will/talent to change those mistakes). The question was why people keep claiming "TT doesn't translate well to a FPS" without giving any arguments or specifics.

I know MWO is a bad translation of TT; I enumerated some reasons why in my first post.

[Kdogg788]

I have no idea why this thread is still ongoing. MWO will never be a direct equivalent to TT. If you want TT, Battletech is upcoming.

-k

[Hotthedd]

Kdogg788, on 18 September 2015 - 08:25 AM, said:

I have no idea why this thread is still ongoing. MWO will never be a direct equivalent to TT. If you want TT, Battletech is upcoming.

-k

Nobody ever said MW:O could or should be a direct equivalent to TT. The argument is that MW:O COULD simulate what TT SIMULATES. Those who say it cannot be done never give a reason for their argument.
For example: Just because TT uses RNG to simulate hits and misses does not mean MW:O cannot simulate hits and misses by another means.

[Kdogg788]

Hotthedd, on 18 September 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

Nobody ever said MW:O could or should be a direct equivalent to TT. The argument is that MW:O COULD simulate what TT SIMULATES. Those who say it cannot be done never give a reason for their argument.
For example: Just because TT uses RNG to simulate hits and misses does not mean MW:O cannot simulate hits and misses by another means.

I never said it was impossible per say, but that with a change in game format you have to do what's best for the game. TT relies on the roll of dice, while a first person game relies more on hand eye coordination and real time communication with other players. I wouldn't expect a full on TT realization on MWO.

-k

[Hotthedd]

Kdogg788, on 18 September 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

I never said it was impossible per say, but that with a change in game format you have to do what's best for the game. TT relies on the roll of dice, while a first person game relies more on hand eye coordination and real time communication with other players. I wouldn't expect a full on TT realization on MWO.

-k

And nobody to my knowledge is advocating that. The points are being made that balancing the game towards the TT values would be a good thing.

[Solahma]

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

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

TT balance accounts for probability, a constant that can be manipulated by modifiers. It's a random chance with a set probability of success or failure. In an FPS, those balances statistics are thrown out the window because of player skill and accuracy. You cannot simply replace a SET success/failure probability with a real person and expect everything to be fine.

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

Why doesn't it work for balance in a computer game?

Direct player control
No movement restrictions based on strict rules
Real-time combat and reactions
Networking

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

Exactly which "pretty sizable compromises for the sake of balance" would need to be done?

Time to kill, thus modification of armor values. Hyper-accuracy of beam weapons, thus longer duration burns.
Some of the supposed "issues" with MWO could be avoided by following TT mechanics. For example hardpoint sizes would remove the need for Ghost heat, but the approach for this game is full customization, so Ghost Heat was added to avoid spamming particular weapons. People complain because they can't take 6 PPCs and fire them effectively, but in TT you wouldn't have even been able to fit 6 PPCs to begin with. Not saying that's what you're fighting for, just an example of TT vs. MWO.

Fact of the matter is, some weapons in TT are inherently NOT balanced when you consider the huge impact of player-controlled accuracy. Not only with their ability to hit, but the ability to place damage exactly where you want without taking a penalty to accuracy. So following a TT value would quickly ruin balance.

You're proposed changes based on the TT philosophy for particular weapons DOES NOT work when considering player accuracy. Sure, I can see your argument about why you think that way, but you completely fail to account that this is a VIDEO GAME controlled by players, you don't acknowledge it in any way. You say pulse weapons are more accurate, thus should have increased burn time? that means more of your burn needs to be maintained on-target, meaning a GREATER chance of missing.

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

Personally, I think it's perfectly doable. I'm under no illusion PGI will be able to, but I don't think it's by any means impossible.

Sure, you can certainly incorporate more TT values/rules into the game. However, MWO is focused on making a balanced and competitive game, not a Battletech simulator.

I would love for Battlefield games to accurately reproduce vehicle combat, but that's not the type of game it is.

stjobe, on 17 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

I've never seen any supportive arguments though

because you don't acknowledge them

Edited by Solahma, 18 September 2015 - 09:07 AM.

[xengk]

If anyone is interest in TT based Mechwarrior FPS, look for Blender BattleTech.
10 second cooldown on all weapon
cone of fire
heat penalty
TTK for 2 on 2 is about 2 minutes

Edited by xengk, 18 September 2015 - 09:25 AM.

[stjobe]

Solahma, on 18 September 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

[snip good post]

Apart from that last line, that was exactly the kind of response I was hoping for. I don't necessarily agree with it, but at least there is some reasoning behind the statements, some grounds for debate. Not just the closed door of "TT doesn't translate well" without anything behind it.

So thank you.

(also, I think you mixed me and the OP up; I'm not the OP of this thread and I have proposed no changes)

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Solahma, on 18 September 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

[i]
TT balance accounts for probability, a constant that can be manipulated by modifiers. It's a random chance with a set probability of success or failure. In an FPS, those balances statistics are thrown out the window because of player skill and accuracy. You cannot simply replace a SET success/failure probability with a real person and expect everything to be fine.

You over rate accuracy.
What does truly matter is spreading damage. MWO feels how it feels mainly be cause one thing, massive PPFLD. And that is a true difference between MWO right now and TT. I`m not sure if you played with us on any Stock event, but I just realized that this is the main reason why we liked Stock game play so much. In MWO Stock 3025 you can`t have constant stream of more then 20 PPFLD, and that is making huge difference. If you defend yourself, mek will spread damage, just as it would in TT. That way Stock 3025 MWO, feels so much more BT.

So to fix PPFLD you got just many, many ideas around. Take a look at this one. http://www.qqmercs.c...ence-and-clans/

So it can be done. The problem is not that you can`t translate TT to FPS, as many is saying like mantra, forgetting that MWO is indeed based on TT and it is not Hawken or something. The problem is that you have to do it smart enough.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 18 September 2015 - 09:58 AM.

[FupDup]

Solahma, on 18 September 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

...
For example hardpoint sizes would remove the need for Ghost heat, but the approach for this game is full customization, so Ghost Heat was added to avoid spamming particular weapons. People complain because they can't take 6 PPCs and fire them effectively, but in TT you wouldn't have even been able to fit 6 PPCs to begin with. Not saying that's what you're fighting for, just an example of TT vs. MWO.
...

I want to point out here that hardpoints are not a Tabletop mechanic at all, they were invented by Microsoft for Mechwarrior 4. You can put anything in any location in TT if you have the slots and tonnage to fit it, with the only restriction being if your specific gaming table chooses to follow the refit rules from Strategic Operations or if your GM outright forces you to use stock mechs.


I'm also going to correct your comment about the 6 PPC thing. You CAN fit 6 PPCs in Tabletop easily, the only problem is having enough critical slots to dissipate the heat they generate...which run out too quickly. 3-slot DHS are quite limited.

On the Clan side, however, you can easily use a Tabletop mech with 4 Clan ERPPCs and 30 Clan DHS to be 100% heat neutral...it's even a stock build too. http://bte.battletec...te/pdf/1481.pdf

Edited by FupDup, 18 September 2015 - 11:36 AM.

[MischiefSC]

One reality PGI has to deal with is that there are a lot of players who would quit in a huff if Clan mechs were not inherently better than IS mechs. That just is what it is. My hope is that after Steam release and we get people who want skill to be more relevant than mech selection and would be pissed to see a game intentionally balanced to give one side an advantage (which is what we have now) those people who only play when the game is skewed in their favor can leave and not be missed from a business perspective.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Yeah hard point size do not remove needs of ghost heat.
Be cause is not removing PPFLD. As you have several Stock designs that naturally boat massive PPFLD.
Even without any dose of customization there is still need for ghost heat. To give any reason For King Grab and Awesome to chain fire and control amount of alpha striking. And still many is saying that K2 and 8Q are OP, and I agree with it, that they would need to lower GH in fact to 2. Just to spread more damage. But that Stock Balance talk, something quiet different. But its light up the problem that is in full custom as well, in Stock is just far less of problem as it is much more under control.

[FupDup]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 18 September 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

Yeah hard point size do not remove needs of ghost heat.
Be cause is not removing PPFLD. As you have several Stock designs that naturally boat massive PPFLD.
Even without any dose of customization there is still need for ghost heat. To give any reason For King Grab and Awesome to chain fire and control amount of alpha striking. And still many is saying that K2 and 8Q are OP, and I agree with it, that they would need to lower GH in fact to 2. Just to spread more damage. But that Stock Balance talk, something quiet different. But its light up the problem that is in full custom as well, in Stock is just far less of problem as it is much more under control.

For the record, the current overall "best" weapons in the game right now are Clan lasers, which actually aren't PPFLD.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

FupDup, on 18 September 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

For the record, the current overall "best" weapons in the game right now are Clan lasers, which actually aren't PPFLD.

Yeah, be cause they got stats out of this world. Not meant at all for 1 to 1 balance.