162 replies to this topic

[Ratpoison]

Lightfoot, on 08 February 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Players complain about convergence, which is trivial in it's effect since if multi-weapon groups did not converge players would just switch to large single high damage weapons and there would in effect be no change.

But I wonder what players would say if those large high damage weapons started knocking mechs down? The effect is called weapons-spin and all previous MechWarrior games had mech knockdowns. MW3 even required you to press a "Get Up" button. Would MWO players be writing volumes of why knockdowns should be removed?

Sure, when you can explain to me the physics of how a cannon shell no heavier than 1/7th of a ton knocks down a gyroscopically stabilized 100 ton war machine. Or even a 20 ton one.

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

This is the first time I've ever heard pointing and clicking is labor intensive, rife with balance problems and convoluted.

I see a square. I click on the square. I score!

Thank you. I needed that laugh.

Come back when you have a real argument to make.

So out of touch you can't even comprehend that "labor" refers to development resources and not what a player has to do. Wow.

[cazidin]

Mister Blastman, perhaps you should take a moments rest from this conversation. You won't persuade anyone to your POV if you insult them.

TortuouGoddess, that explanation is really quite simple. The reason is...

[Troutmonkey]

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 07:42 PM, said:

So out of touch you can't even comprehend that "labor" refers to development resources and not what a player has to do. Wow.

It's a combination of work required by programmers, and work required on behalf of players to make the new mechanics work in their favour.

[Aresye]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

This is the first time I've ever heard pointing and clicking is labor intensive, rife with balance problems and convoluted.

I see a square. I click on the square. I score!

Thank you. I needed that laugh.

Come back when you have a real argument to make.

The argument is simple and not very hard to understand:

The reason why all these ideas won't work:
- Top players will be unaffected.
- Bottom players will be SEVERELY affected.
- Game will become even more frustrating due to a higher skill gap, resulting in a massive loss of players and resulting collapse of the game.

Any questions?

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

This is the first time I've ever heard pointing and clicking is labor intensive, rife with balance problems and convoluted.

I see a square. I click on the square. I score!

Thank you. I needed that laugh.

Come back when you have a real argument to make.

Data entry is a very easy job to do, all you have to do is copy data from one field and input it into another.
Data entry isn't however, a very fun or rewarding job. There's a reason why it is automated as much as possible.
What you want to do is add more hoops for the player to jump through just so they can do damage. Sure, it's humanly possible but it's not fun or rewarding and as I keep saying - it doesn't even address the problem -

It would be like suggesting as system where players have to push one button for the left leg, and another for the right leg to walk. Pressing buttons is easy, and the system is possible for a human to execute. The concept is easy enough to understand and players could do it, but no one would ever want to. Why is that?

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 07:50 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

cazidin, on 08 February 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

Mister Blastman, perhaps you should take a moments rest from this conversation. You won't persuade anyone to your POV if you insult them.

TortuouGoddess, that explanation is really quite simple. The reason is...

Insult? I'm not insulting anyone. I've provided clear and concise text. It is simple to understand.

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Data entry is a very easy job to do, all you have to do is copy data from one field and input it into another.
Data entry isn't however, a very fun or rewarding job. There's a reason why it is automated as much as possible.
What you want to do is add more hoops for the player to jump through just so they can do damage. Sure, it's humanly possible but it's not fun or rewarding and as I keep saying - it doesn't even address the problem -

It would be like suggesting as system where players have to push one button for the left leg, and another for the right leg to walk. Pressing buttons is easy, and the system is possible for a human to execute. The concept is easy enough to understand and players could do it, but no one would ever want to. Why is that?

Clicking on a box is not a hoop.

Wait.

Let me quote that again.

Quote

What you want to do is add more hoops for the player to jump through

Nothing changes. Just smaller boxes. This is not hard. But once again you're using the same old tired argument it is complicated. And you just said clicking on a box is a hoop to jump through.

What do you want? A red button to press and stuff just explodes?

Aresye, on 08 February 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

The argument is simple and not very hard to understand:

The reason why all these ideas won't work:
- Top players will be unaffected.
- Bottom players will be SEVERELY affected.
- Game will become even more frustrating due to a higher skill gap, resulting in a massive loss of players and resulting collapse of the game.

Any questions?

Who CARES if top players are unaffected! Top players are top because they are GOOD.

And yes, they would be affected. It would be harder to hit those boxes as there are more of them. So now you have to try harder to poke through the armor.

This is not a problem. This is a challenge. Games are supposed to be challenging.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 07:50 PM, said:

Insult? I'm not insulting anyone. I've provided clear and concise text. It is simple to understand.

But you are. You are attempting to belittle me with comments like
"This is kindergarten stuff man. " - Implying that I am of low intelligence
"You don't read well, do you." - Implying that I am illiterate or having difficulty understanding your concepts
"Then I might talk to you. " - Implying that I'm not worth debating with
"Come back when you have a real argument to make. " - Implying that any argument coming from me isn't worth considering

Either you're clear about the idea you're proposing and it's bad, or you're very bad at communicating your proposal and we are all missing some very important details.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 07:54 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

Who CARES if top players are unaffected! Top players are top because they are GOOD.

And yes, they would be affected. It would be harder to hit those boxes as there are more of them. So now you have to try harder to poke through the armor.

This is not a problem. This is a challenge. Games are supposed to be challenging.

More hit boxes = Less armour between each hitbox = Easier to drill through with a pinpoint alpha strike. You are literally advocating for a system that would make PPFLD more effective.

Also, you seem to be the kind of guy that would accept randomized keybinds as a "challenge" that "skilled" players should overcome instead of a frustration that would drive off players.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 07:59 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

But you are. You are attempting to belittle me with comments like
"This is kindergarten stuff man. " - Implying that I am of low intelligence
"You don't read well, do you." - Implying that I am illiterate or having difficulty understanding your concepts
"Then I might talk to you. " - Implying that I'm not worth debating with
"Come back when you have a real argument to make. " - Implying that any argument coming from me isn't worth considering

Either you're clear about the idea you're proposing and it's bad, or you're very bad at communicating your proposal and we are all missing some very important details.

My earlier posts in this thread--especially the one with an example of the hitboxes... was clear, concise and simple. Please go read it again.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5008328

[cazidin]

Gentlemen, please. We needn't debate with such open hostility.

[Mister Blastman]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

More hit boxes = Less armour between each hitbox = Easier to drill through with a pinpoint alpha strike. You are literally advocating for a system that would make PPFLD more effective.

Also, you seem to be the kind of guy that would accept randomized keybinds as a "challenge" that "skilled" players should overcome instead of a frustration that would drive off players.

Once again... GO READ THAT POST. You aren't comprehending it.

[cazidin]

I think that the confusion may be that if the hitboxes are split up the armor would be distributed accordingly.

[Mister Blastman]

cazidin, on 08 February 2016 - 08:01 PM, said:

I think that the confusion may be that if the hitboxes are split up the armor would be distributed accordingly.

No it would not. My post explains this in simple terms.

[cazidin]

I understand that. I'm merely suggesting that it may explain the confusion.

[ShadowFire]

At the end of the day most players will get rather ticked off when their personal skill is holding their target tight, but the simulation is spraying their fire all over the place for no good reason. BS TT random numbers/dice rolling rules should not apply in the virtual game world. Chaining the game to many of these rules and PGI will bleed customers by the thousands.....

If you want players to buy into more barriers against shooting what they are aiming at, PGI might want to introduce more realistic weapon recoil and rocking effects. At least the Battletech books mentioned their effects quite often. Heavy shells/PPC bolts coming or going should really effect the sight picture, and the burning off/blasting off of tons of armor should reduce mech stability to the point mechs can and do fall or get knocked over. BTW, MW4 had this. It was the death of many lights and mediums, though heavies and assaults went down too every once in a while.

On the other hand many new players get started with lights and mediums. PGI (and us) should want them to stick around to become regular players of the game. Not get slaughtered by the more experienced and well equipped players.

[Ratpoison]

The confusion is that there isn't a confusion. You really need to just accept that we think your idea is bad in design.

[cazidin]

It wasn't my idea and I never said that I would like even more hitboxes.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

Once again... GO READ THAT POST. You aren't comprehending it.

Okay I've read it again. This may have been easier if you just quoted the part that I had wrong instead of just yelling at me. I guess I was right about the communication issues. Anyway I admit was wrong. It won't make mechs weaker. It will make mechs insanely tough. TTK will go through the roof. Mechs would be able to take insane amounts of punishment. Expecially light mechs who's hit boxes will be so small that it would be impossible not to spread.
Now, guess what, still bad idea.

1. UI would require a massive overhaul to represent the extra 6 hit boxes
2. Servers would now have to synchronise the data on 12 extra armor values per mech
3. Servers would now have to simulate an extra 6 hit boxes locations at least per mech
4. Every single mech would require new hitboxes, and then have those hitboxes balanced and tested
5. Every single mech would require new art to represent the destroyed / in tact states of each place
6. The code for damage transfer would have to be completely overhauled
7. This code for CERPPC spread would have to be completely overhauled
8. PPFLD will still be the best way to take down mechs, as any other method will have it's damage spread across all the different hitboxes and thus be worthless. The winning move will be to drill the same armor component over and over with pin point damage.

So we've just wasted years of developer time, and not even solved the problem.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 08:13 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 08:09 PM, said:

The confusion is that there isn't a confusion. You really need to just accept that we think your idea is bad in design.

More hitboxes is simple in design. It is far simpler than a combination of...

ghost heat
ppc damage spread
target laser range delay
multiple shells per autocannon
quirks per each mech
multiple balance passes every time the meta shifts

Instead... you get one solution for them all.

Simplicity. KISS

Keep It Stupid Simple. Done.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

More hitboxes is simple in design. It is far simpler than a combination of...

ghost heat
ppc damage spread
target laser range delay
multiple shells per autocannon
quirks per each mech
multiple balance passes every time the meta shifts

Instead... you get one solution for them all.

Simplicity. KISS

Keep It Stupid Simple. Done.

Read my post above yours as to why your system is far from simple. Just because you can explain it in a single sentence doesn't make it simple. Ghost Heat was chosen because it was the simplest solution technically, and it partially addressed the problem. It "kinda" works, but is still far and away not as effective as Homeless Bill's "CoF, but only when you shoot too much" idea which was technically harder to achieve and required a bit more work on the developer side

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 08:24 PM.