32 replies to this topic

[Suko]

Personally, I'm more in support of player skill vs avatar skill. However, I do admit that getting avatar bonuses that could give you an edge in battle would be an awesome incentive to progress my character/rank in MWO.

Here's an example:
Every time the player scores a hit with a weapon system (SRM, PPC, AC), it adds up experience points. After the player's 'avatar' has made enough successful hits with a specific weapon system, their 'Proficiency' with that weapon goes up. Perhaps adding a very small benefit in combat, like 10% quicker reloads/recycle time, 10% more damage, or something similar. Having to use a weapon to get proficient with it just makes sense. Someone comfortable using energy weapons on a mech like the Marauder would find it difficult to perform equally well in a missile-based design like the Catapult (until they got proficient with that design).

You could even extend this further so that the player can get proficient with a specific mech design. Each mission the pilot completes using a specific mech (or perhaps even model of a mech) adds to the avatar's proficiency in it. Perhaps a mech's proficiency bonuses could even stack with weapon bonuses. This would give players a reason to stick with some of the lighter designs (especially if they've gotten a lot of proficiency bonuses with that chassis). It would also passively enforce the 'feel' of the BTech universe, where most Mechwarriors use the same mech, mission after mission, because they're familiar with it. They usually only switch out to a new mech if there is an obvious advantage in it for them, or their previous mech had been lost in combat.

I don't think minor advantages like this would be game-breaking and it rewards those who put time and effort into learning a design inside and out to maximize it's abilities. Also, this would give players another incentive (other than bigger mechs) to improve their avatar and increase their ranks.

Thoughts, Opinions, Tomatoes?

Edited by shadowvfx, 06 December 2011 - 10:42 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think a 10% bonus is way too much - more like 1% for each "level" would perhaps be better. The general idea I like and may be what the dev's have been hinting at.

[CeeKay Boques]

I"m too moody for that. Sometimes I feel like a scout, sometimes a heavy thundering across the plains... I will try all the weapons on a daily basis. That means I... I mean once i have 10% advantage, wouldn't I keep going down that path?

I want to be proficient in itself in a weapon because I, the guy at the keyboard am. Because that weapon is hard...esque to use.

You know what, I shouldn't comment, I can't resolve "Bonuses" and "XP". I'll have to see how they make it.

[GaussDragon]

shadowvfx, on 06 December 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

Personally, I'm more in support of player skill vs avatar skill. However, I do admit that getting avatar bonuses that could give you an edge in battle would be an awesome incentive to progress my character/rank in MWO.

Here's an example:
Every time the player scores a hit with a weapon system (SRM, PPC, AC), it adds up experience points. After the player's 'avatar' has made enough successful hits with a specific weapon system, their 'Proficiency' with that weapon goes up. Perhaps adding a very small benefit in combat, like 10% quicker reloads/recycle time, 10% more damage, or something similar. Having to use a weapon to get proficient with it just makes sense. Someone comfortable using energy weapons on a mech like the Marauder would find it difficult to perform equally well in a missile-based design like the Catapult (until they got proficient with that design).

You could even extend this further so that the player can get proficient with a specific mech design. Each mission the pilot completes using a specific mech (or perhaps even model of a mech) adds to the avatar's proficiency in it. Perhaps a mech's proficiency bonuses could even stack with weapon bonuses. This would give players a reason to stick with some of the lighter designs (especially if they've gotten a lot of proficiency bonuses with that chassis). It would also passively enforce the 'feel' of the BTech universe, where most Mechwarriors use the same mech, mission after mission, because they're familiar with it. They usually only switch out to a new mech if there is an obvious advantage in it for them, or their previous mech had been lost in combat.

I don't think minor advantages like this would be game-breaking and it rewards those who put time and effort into learning a design inside and out to maximize it's abilities. Also, this would give players another incentive (other than bigger mechs) to improve their avatar and increase their ranks.

Thoughts, Opinions, Tomatoes?

I'm going to assume this is already intended as part of the game. But as to your post, I agree on the premise and I'd 'like' it if I wasn't already out of them today lol. I agree that any bonuses should be small because since this is an FPS, imagine a dude with not only very good markanship and piloting skills, but with all sorts of bonuses accrued. You'd have the typical skilled pilot whooping on people (nothing wrong with that) but if the skill bonuses accrue to the level that they do in say, EVE, (I know it's point-and-click and lacks the marksmanship element) then you'd basically have a MechGod, not a MechWarrior haha. So yes, I agree, the bonuses should be small perks, but not enough to make an uber pilot a super-duper-uber pilot. In this scenario, I could see many newbies/lowbies leaving the game because they never even had a remote chance.

We basically do not want this:
http://farm4.staticf...9c4c_z.jpg?zz=1

[BerserX]

shadowvfx, on 06 December 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

Personally, I'm more in support of player skill vs avatar skill. However, I do admit that getting avatar bonuses that could give you an edge in battle would be an awesome incentive to progress my character/rank in MWO.

Here's an example:
Every time the player scores a hit with a weapon system (SRM, PPC, AC), it adds up experience points. After the player's 'avatar' has made enough successful hits with a specific weapon system, their 'Proficiency' with that weapon goes up. Perhaps adding a very small benefit in combat, like 10% quicker reloads/recycle time, 10% more damage, or something similar. Having to use a weapon to get proficient with it just makes sense. Someone comfortable using energy weapons on a mech like the Marauder would find it difficult to perform equally well in a missile-based design like the Catapult (until they got proficient with that design).

You could even extend this further so that the player can get proficient with a specific mech design. Each mission the pilot completes using a specific mech (or perhaps even model of a mech) adds to the avatar's proficiency in it. Perhaps a mech's proficiency bonuses could even stack with weapon bonuses. This would give players a reason to stick with some of the lighter designs (especially if they've gotten a lot of proficiency bonuses with that chassis). It would also passively enforce the 'feel' of the BTech universe, where most Mechwarriors use the same mech, mission after mission, because they're familiar with it. They usually only switch out to a new mech if there is an obvious advantage in it for them, or their previous mech had been lost in combat.

I don't think minor advantages like this would be game-breaking and it rewards those who put time and effort into learning a design inside and out to maximize it's abilities. Also, this would give players another incentive (other than bigger mechs) to improve their avatar and increase their ranks.

Thoughts, Opinions, Tomatoes?

Anyone here played "Mount & Blade?"

I think that a "proficiency" factor is a good idea. However, it needs to be one that forces you to use the weapon excessively. In M&B, I am an expert shot with a bow and arrow, and I'm even better with a lance on horseback. My excessive usage of these weapons has allowed me to wield them more efficiently. One could easily argue that the proficiency with each weapon is reflective of the character becoming more steady holding it, or stronger (and therefore more able to hold/swing it).

Unfortunately, mechanized weapons are harder to justify this with. It would be easy to say that the person becomes better with it, but doesn't anyone crazy enough to take a light 'Mech into a championship - and win - typically acquire the necessary skills to do so on their own?

This is a tricky topic to deal with. I personally, would like to be rewarded for my heavy usage of ballistic weapory (and I would be greatly encouraged to use energy weapons), if a realisticway could be determined to justify it. If no plausible way can be determined, then I would rather not have it: I can't stand feeling like I'm playing with a handicap bonus to augment my skill (that's just me: I like to feel as if my character's performance is directly reflective of my skill).

[Helmer]

BerserX, on 06 December 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

Anyone here played "Mount & Blade?"

I think that a "proficiency" factor is a good idea. However, it needs to be one that forces you to use the weapon excessively. In M&B, I am an expert shot with a bow and arrow, and I'm even better with a lance on horseback. My excessive usage of these weapons has allowed me to wield them more efficiently. One could easily argue that the proficiency with each weapon is reflective of the character becoming more steady holding it, or stronger (and therefore more able to hold/swing it).

Unfortunately, mechanized weapons are harder to justify this with. It would be easy to say that the person becomes better with it, but doesn't anyone crazy enough to take a light 'Mech into a championship - and win - typically acquire the necessary skills to do so on their own?

This is a tricky topic to deal with. I personally, would like to be rewarded for my heavy usage of ballistic weapory (and I would be greatly encouraged to use energy weapons), if a realisticway could be determined to justify it. If no plausible way can be determined, then I would rather not have it: I can't stand feeling like I'm playing with a handicap bonus to augment my skill (that's just me: I like to feel as if my character's performance is directly reflective of my skill).

Agreed. If there is a reasonable justification for it, then I am all for proficiencies. Doing extra damage because I use a LRM launcher alot doesn't IMHO, make sense.

Mount and Blade:Warband here. HOBO HAIL!

[Havoc2]

shadowvfx, on 06 December 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

Personally, I'm more in support of player skill vs avatar skill. However, I do admit that getting avatar bonuses that could give you an edge in battle would be an awesome incentive to progress my character/rank in MWO.

Here's an example:
Every time the player scores a hit with a weapon system (SRM, PPC, AC), it adds up experience points. After the player's 'avatar' has made enough successful hits with a specific weapon system, their 'Proficiency' with that weapon goes up. Perhaps adding a very small benefit in combat, like 10% quicker reloads/recycle time, 10% more damage, or something similar. Having to use a weapon to get proficient with it just makes sense. Someone comfortable using energy weapons on a mech like the Marauder would find it difficult to perform equally well in a missile-based design like the Catapult (until they got proficient with that design).

You could even extend this further so that the player can get proficient with a specific mech design. Each mission the pilot completes using a specific mech (or perhaps even model of a mech) adds to the avatar's proficiency in it. Perhaps a mech's proficiency bonuses could even stack with weapon bonuses. This would give players a reason to stick with some of the lighter designs (especially if they've gotten a lot of proficiency bonuses with that chassis). It would also passively enforce the 'feel' of the BTech universe, where most Mechwarriors use the same mech, mission after mission, because they're familiar with it. They usually only switch out to a new mech if there is an obvious advantage in it for them, or their previous mech had been lost in combat.

I don't think minor advantages like this would be game-breaking and it rewards those who put time and effort into learning a design inside and out to maximize it's abilities. Also, this would give players another incentive (other than bigger mechs) to improve their avatar and increase their ranks.

Thoughts, Opinions, Tomatoes?

I would agree to this to a MAXIMUM bonus of 10%. This would benefit people who tend to stick to certain roles/weapons/chassis but not cause such a huge advantage as to make them unkillable.

I would also suggest that there be a large number of things to specialize in, not just energy, ballistic, missile.
I'm thinking small energy spec (which could include small lasers and flamers), medium energy (MLas), large energy spec (PPCs and LLas) etc. along with recon specific specializations like electronics suites (which would also level up with Command).

[VanillaG]

I would think the proficiency would be broken down into at least 4 categories:

• Gunnery Major - LRM, SRM, Laser, AC
  
• Gunnery Minor - LRM-5, LRM -10, Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, ect.
  
• Pilot Major - Light, Medium, Large, Assault
  
• Pilot Minor - Specific mech type.

Those factors would be used regulate the size of the aiming reticule when firing weapons (basically a cone of fire - this has been hashed out in other threads). The more experience a player has with a certain mechs and weapons, the smaller the reticule becomes. For example, you start in a light mech and your reticule is fairly large but as you gain experience with that mech and weapons the reticule begins to shrink down to almost pinpoint precision. You decide you want to try another mech the following would occur:

• Another light mech with similar weapons, the reticule becomes slightly larger because of a different Pilot Minor.
  
• Another light mech with totally different type of weapons, the reticule is larger that the one in 1 because of different Pilot Minor, Gunnery Major, and Gunnery Minor.
  
• A medium mech with similar weapons, the reticule is larger that the one in 2 because of different Pilot Major, Pilot Minor, and most likely Gunnery Minor because of different sized weapons.
  
• A medium mech with totally different weapons, the reticule is larger than the one in 3 because of different Pilot Major, Pilot Minor, Gunnery Major, and Gunnery Minor.

This kind of system allows a player to specialize in a style mech (AC heavy, Laser Heavy, Missle Heavy) so they can be more proficient stepping up in weight with a similar mech than one that starts out Light - Laser and goes to Medium-Missile. You can still move to different style but you have a steeper learning curve than had you stayed with something similar. With enough experience you back in to being competitive.

You could also introduce a decay that every match you play and you do not use a skill you lose a small amount of experience. This prevents a player from maxing out all of the different mechs and weapons and being able to jump into any mech with max skill. Basically you must use your skills on a regular basis or your performance will suffer when go back to a different mech/weapon.

[Red Beard]

Pilot leveling might make sense if leveling up comes when using mech specific abilities. If all a pilot does is charge in and fire his lasers, there should be no XP for that as it does not assist in teamwork. However, if a scout is proficient in gaining usable recon, and can succeed in doing so on a regular basis, this should be rewarded. I cannot say what abilities will exist beyond weaponry, but rewarding specific traits that are isolated to only a few mechs seems more viable than simply leveling up ones gauss skills after so many shots fired.

I also agree that leveling up should be tiring and slow. One should only be given a higher status within the ranks of one specific mech type after many, many missions.

[Pht]

Avatar skills don't bother me as long as they only relate to things that we cannot control for ourselves with our PCs...

That means there can be no skills that make your pilot aim the reticule better, or skills that make them hit the heat-override for you...

Skills directly related to the use of the neurohelmet are cool, as are things that, in the TT, would result in a PSR (in video game terms, when the pilot has to use the neurohelmet and his physical piloting reactions to keep the 'mech from falling over because the pilot did something stupid or something really bad happens, like the near-instant loss of an arm or a LOT of tonnage of armor to weapons fire.

[VanillaG]

Pht, on 07 December 2011 - 05:24 PM, said:

Avatar skills don't bother me as long as they only relate to things that we cannot control for ourselves with our PCs...

That means there can be no skills that make your pilot aim the reticule better, or skills that make them hit the heat-override for you...

Based on the FAQ, " Pilots will bring their efficiencies to whatever BattleMech® they get in". To me that means that a rookie pilot will have a harder time hitting targets than a more experienced pilot. You will still control where the reticule points, but the where it actually hits in the reticule is influenced by the pilot. As your pilot gets more experience the reticule becomes smaller. This means that with more experience, you can more reliably hit a mech at longer distances and more reliably hit specific regions at closer ranges. The player brings the tactics to the table.

Red Beard, on 07 December 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

If all a pilot does is charge in and fire his lasers, there should be no XP for that as it does not assist in teamwork.

Agreed. You could link the XP gain to actually hitting a enemy mech. You could also take away Piloting XP if you consistently take large amounts of damage. That way it promotes a more tactical game instead of suiciding repeatly into the enemy.

[Pht]

VanillaG, on 07 December 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

Based on the FAQ, " Pilots will bring their efficiencies to whatever BattleMech® they get in". To me that means that a rookie pilot will have a harder time hitting targets than a more experienced pilot. You will still control where the reticule points, but the where it actually hits in the reticule is influenced by the pilot. As your pilot gets more experience the reticule becomes smaller. This means that with more experience, you can more reliably hit a mech at longer distances and more reliably hit specific regions at closer ranges. The player brings the tactics to the table.

Um ...

No, these things you mention are either directly or indirectly controlled by things we, the human players at our pcs, can directly control.

We control where the reticule is, we control where our 'mech is placed in relation to our target, and how hot or cool our 'mech is, what weapons we choose to fire at what ranges and with what ammo, how long we give the 'mech to get a good firing fix with it's sensors and computers and structures that point the weapons, we control when to fire the weapons, we control whether we try and shoot while running, or jumping, we choose what kind of target behavior indicates, to us, a good time to fire our weapons... these are what makes up "gunnery skill" in a 'mech - and they're all things that we, the gamers, can directly control from our computers.

I think a huge part of the MW community is that of "skill" ... we want to get "our hands on" a 'mech, as closely as we can, and do what we can with it.


Giving those things to the ingame avatar would make MWO an MMO-RPG instead of just an MMOG, and there are plenty of other meaningful things that they could have the avatar handle besides these gunnery skills.

Edited by Pht, 07 December 2011 - 07:26 PM.

[VanillaG]

Pht, on 07 December 2011 - 07:24 PM, said:

...how long we give the 'mech to get a good firing fix with it's sensors and computers and structures that point the weapons, we control when to fire the weapons, we control whether we try and shoot while running, or jumping, we choose what kind of target behavior indicates, to us, a good time to fire our weapons... these are what makes up "gunnery skill" in a 'mech - and they're all things that we, the gamers, can directly control from our computers.

I guess this really comes down to how you simulate decreased accuracy based on movement. One way to simulate this is to have a steady background with the reticule increasing/decreasing in size based on what you are doing (i.e running vs. walking vs jumping). The other way would be to have a fixed size reticule but have the background and target move/shake. It would be pilot's (not player's) skill that determines the speed of the reticule resizing / background shaking.

[Pht]

VanillaG, on 07 December 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

I guess this really comes down to how you simulate decreased accuracy based on movement. One way to simulate this is to have a steady background with the reticule increasing/decreasing in size based on what you are doing (i.e running vs. walking vs jumping). The other way would be to have a fixed size reticule but have the background and target move/shake. It would be pilot's (not player's) skill that determines the speed of the reticule resizing / background shaking.

Actually, there's already a mechanic for quality of weapons lock in the lore - color coding the reticule along with different audible tones.

One of the third party MW games messed with reticules that bounce - and resizing the reticule would, IMO, have the same effect - it turned out to be crazy-making to deal with.

As far as "other" skills involved with gunnery? ... I'm pretty certain I covered everything that the pilot can possibly do to directly or indirectly control how well his 'mech can hit the target he's got under the reticule. There really *isnt* anything, imo, that they could give the avatar as far as gunnery skills (and I mean skills that control how well a target gets hit) beyond those, without getting into RPG land.

The rest of "how well does it hit" is tied up in simulating how well a 'Mech, as it exists in the BTU lore, can resolve weapons fire.

I suspect you also may not be aware that there's a not so quiet (and I suspect not so small) group that would utterly HATE having the avatar control any of the gunnery skills that we can control with our pcs.

[VanillaG]

Pht, on 07 December 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

The rest of "how well does it hit" is tied up in simulating how well a 'Mech, as it exists in the BTU lore, can resolve weapons fire.

I suspect you also may not be aware that there's a not so quiet (and I suspect not so small) group that would utterly HATE having the avatar control any of the gunnery skills that we can control with our pcs.

Yeah, I know about that whole argument about "don't touch my gunnery skills". The part I have trouble wrapping my mind around is how you separate out gunnery vs pilot skills. To me those seem so intertwined that they end up being one big "modifier" for how well you hit. A pilot who has awesome piloting skills but poor gunnery skill would be about as effective as pilot who has awesome gunnery skills but can barely keep his mech upright.

Based on all of the arguments that I have seen you end up following general types of damage models:

• Exact Location with Exact damage.
  
• Exact Location with Random damage.
  
• Random Location with Exact damage.
  
• Randon Location with Random damage.

When I say random I do not mean a true "roll of the dice" but more of an equation that takes into account relative speed between the mechs, relative orientation between the mechs, type of weapon(s) used, range, and any other variables you can think of. The first and last options are the least fun in my opinion. The first seems to favor players with low ping times and high performance setups and the last one does not allow the player to exert any of their skill. The devs are going to have to code in some sort of consistent variability to make the game somewhat predictable while taking into account network lag, graphic card limitations, cpu speeds, etc as well as balancing between types of weapons.

I don't want to come across as a troll but I am truly interested in what damage model you prefer and more importantly why you like that model. I think we can all agree that whatever damage model/skill system the devs come up with will leave all of us somewhat disappointed.

[GaussDragon]

VanillaG, on 08 December 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

Based on all of the arguments that I have seen you end up following general types of damage models:

• Exact Location with Exact damage.
  
• Exact Location with Random damage.
  
• Random Location with Exact damage.
  
• Randon Location with Random damage.

When I say random I do not mean a true "roll of the dice" but more of an equation that takes into account relative speed between the mechs, relative orientation between the mechs, type of weapon(s) used, range, and any other variables you can think of.

Interesting. Variables, but controllable ones. I find myself in the first camp (exact location/exact damage) but what you propose is an interesting aspect since it spices things up, but a good pilot still knows how to work those variables for his desired outcome (more damage). I hate dice rolls in any shape/fashion TBH.

Quote

The first seems to favor players with low ping times and high performance setups and the last one does not allow the player to exert any of their skill. The devs are going to have to code in some sort of consistent variability to make the game somewhat predictable while taking into account network lag, graphic card limitations, cpu speeds, etc as well as balancing between types of weapons.

I respectfully disagree. I've seen plenty of players in my time with bad pings and crappy setups who were still awesome players. A guy I played with for a long time ran on a 56k on a farm in Idaho, but he was the best Mad Cat pilot I've ever seen. Granted it was MW4, not MWO but if your rig isn't up to par, turn down the graphics settings if you want lower graphical latency and better fighting performance against other players.

[Yeach]

Borrow the specializations from Mechcommander2
http://mwomercs.com/...mechcommander2/

ie some examples
Medium mech specialist
PPC specialist
Sensor specialist


I would be against having better accuracy with experience point. Instead I would opt for better damage up to a max of 10% or 20%. AC20 could do up to 24 damage.
You would hit have to hit certain criteria to level.
for example"
-inflicting 10,000 pts of damage on an enemy mech using a PPC would give you +1% damage (PPC specialization)
-landing 10,000 times without falling; (though have to make jumpjet much more difficult that it has been ie need to feather the landing would give you +1% extra jumpjet juice. (Jumpjet specialization)
-identifying 1000 mechs would give you the ability to identify weight class of mech sooner than normal. (sensor specialization); ie normally you can identify mechs at 200m but having this specialization lets you identify mechs at 500m or so
-etc

All of these will have to be in combat (ie you can't just jumpjet for the sake of jumpjetting to increase the specialization)
Regardless leveling and experience would make the game a grind game like other MMOs.
I am against experience/leveling in giving you better aim if a aiming mechanic (RNG, COF) is added.

Edited by Yeach, 08 December 2011 - 12:23 PM.

[Havoc2]

I vote for exact hit, exact damage as well.

If I can run, target an area in between being hit and bouncing over the terrain I should be rewarded for it. People forget that (unless doing it intentionally) lag goes both ways, if someone has a terrible ping to you, you have a terrible ping to them.


Anyone else remember playing NetMech or MercsPPP and having to aim half a screen in front of someone from Australia in order to hit them?

[GaussDragon]

}{avoc, on 08 December 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

I vote for exact hit, exact damage as well.

If I can run, target an area in between being hit and bouncing over the terrain I should be rewarded for it. People forget that (unless doing it intentionally) lag goes both ways, if someone has a terrible ping to you, you have a terrible ping to them.


Anyone else remember playing NetMech or MercsPPP and having to aim half a screen in front of someone from Australia in order to hit them?

Seconded. I've already run out of 'likes' for today. Though I'm still intrigued by one of Vanilla's variations because fundamentally, I still think it falls into category 1 because there's no dire rolling.

Edited by GaussDragon, 08 December 2011 - 12:19 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

The Dev have said repeatedly that there will be no Bonus, Tweak, Improvement, Perk, or Skill that will provide/allow a Tactical advantage. Any % modifier added to the Avatar that offers any gain is an obvious Tactical advantage. Especially to weapons...

Even if it was 10 1% increments to get that 10%, at the end, the 10% gets on extra shot ever 10 or gets one Free miss and is still even with his opponent who does not possess the 10%.

Imagine fighting a guy with the 10% bonus on weapon reload and you don't have it. Given all things after that being equal, the have not cannot win.

The Perks and Bonuses are a wait and see item for sure but I believe the Dev when they say they will NOT confer Tactical advantages.