38 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

Hmmpffff...

I agree with pretty much everything in this point.
I'm not sure if i'd implement all of them as is, though.

Would love to test them out, first. You know? Like in a Public test server or something.
Shame they don't exist.

[Pariah Devalis]

Juodas Varnas, on 12 April 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

Hmmpffff...

I agree with pretty much everything in this point.
I'm not sure if i'd implement all of them as is, though.

Would love to test them out, first. You know? Like in a Public test server or something.
Shame they don't exist.

From what I understand, Russ and co would be more willing to do a public test if it wasn't for the fact that every time they did hold one almost nobody participated in it. It wasn't worth their time to put the test build together and all, evidently. They were not getting enough players testing it to get feedback.

Livewyr, on 12 April 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

What you have here would definitely be an improvement, over what we have now, but I disagree with the concept. (If that makes sense.)

1: It feels kind of like Super Smash Bros having random mid-air hops.
2: Picturing CoD bunny hopping or the abuse the Timberwolf used for a while. I personally think that might lead to some silliness.
3: It is a bit arcade-y to have the number of jumps correspond to how many jumpjet nozzles are on your mech.

(Definitely agree on the violence of the burn, it is essentially a series of rockets strapped to your back.)

I was thinking sluggish accell on subsequent burns. More to maintain the thrust than to restart it. Since your mech has mass, the deceleration thrusting would feel like a slightly more powerful version of what happens now when you fall off a hill and mash your jump jets to cushion the landing.

[Juodas Varnas]

Pariah Devalis, on 12 April 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

From what I understand, Russ and co would be more willing to do a public test if it wasn't for the fact that every time they did hold one almost nobody participated in it. It wasn't worth their time to put the test build together and all, evidently. They were not getting enough players testing it to get feedback.

Well, i think they'd get more people participating in PTS tests if they wouldn't have events going on at the same time on live-servers (like i'm pretty sure what was happening during the last PTS test).
If anything, i think they could, i don't know, try rewarding people for participating in PTS. Like maybe have small MC or GXP or C-bill rewards for participating in PTS matches that would carry-over to your live-account.

Because, if you can't force people to test the game in PTS from their good will and any sort of desire to help the game improve, you can always play on their greed for free stuff.

[Pariah Devalis]

Juodas Varnas, on 12 April 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

Well, i think they'd get more people participating in PTS tests if they wouldn't have events going on at the same time on live-servers (like i'm pretty sure what was happening during the last PTS test).
If anything, i think they could, i don't know, try rewarding people for participating in PTS. Like maybe have small MC or GXP or C-bill rewards for participating in PTS matches that would carry-over to your live-account.

Because, if you can't force people to test the game in PTS from their good will and any sort of desire to help the game improve, you can always play on their greed for free stuff.

I said the same thing. They do what they do, however. :\ Makes sense to try and track who put in X games in the PTS. If a player participated in various thresholds of games, win or lose, they get rewarded in their live accounts. Basically, make it an event, but an event that can only be earned by using the PTS.

[xengk]

1. Reticule sway
We already have it in game, it activate when you are in 3PV.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4828573

Quote

The crosshair will sway and bop when your mech is moving, the faster you go the more it sway.
Only time the crosshair will be stable is when the mech is at a stand still, you get pin point accuracy but become an easy target.
Nascar light will need to slow down to plant precise shot or risk spraying damage all over the target.

Pin Point pilot skill can be reworked to reduce crosshair sway.
Command Console and Target Computers can also provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Improved Gyros can be rework to provide crosshair stabilizing bonus.
Certain mech variant can also be quirked to have crosshair stabilizing bonus.
All of the above will stack, if the player is willing to invest in the equipment and module.

A foreseen problem would be an immobile firing line vs deathball.
Mechs in firing line will have perfect convergence, while mechs in the deathball will be unable to land precise shot as they move. Something need to happen to break firing line's nerves to scatter them.
Flanking, LRM, artillery and air strike become more useful in the battlefield.

Skilled player can learn to "counter-sway" to minimize damage spread, sorta like how player can learn to control gun recoil on some FPS.

[MarineErrant]

I disagree with reticle sway. Fire control computers are there for a reason and this is one of them. MBT's do it, why not mechs?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Livewyr, on 12 April 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

You elaborated somewhat and explained your thinking on number 2... what about the rest?

"Why?"

Its hard to get too detailed on the phone .

1. Just comes down to fun. I think it is funner to shoot and hit what you point at vs having shots randomly hit within a cone (ret sway). Plus does light get impacted as much as heavies? Can't have lights stop or slow down to shoot. Does it eliminate hill poking because the reticule shakes too much. Popping from cover is important for protection and trading shots. I just don't like reticule shake other than JJs or MASC. That's just me.

4. C. I think if you have LoS, then you see and can target your opponent. I don't see why TAG or NARC is necessary. F. I just feel you should know when missiles are inbound.

5. Maybe some of it is ok. I like BAP as an ECM counter and I think UAVs should see ECM mechs (since it has an LoS of sorts). The rest is ok I guess, but honestly none of it feels like anything I'm excited about.

6. Like all balance, it is better to tweak as you go. Besides, missiles, ballistics, PPCs, and lasers can cause overheat and heat penalties. Altering lasers only for an effect caused by all weapons seems a bit premature. I'd hold off on laser only balance (at least short term).

7. Locking JJs to all or nothing doesn't seem to really solve anything IMO. Maybe it is to tie up crit space and tonnage, but it seems to punish mediums or lights too much. Just not a fan.

[Bobzilla]

If we could change everything on private matches, and had a lobby system, and an easy way to share settings, PGI could see what settings players are gravitating towards. At this point, more people would probably choose a good game environment over cbills/xp.

Problem is, they have zero way of finding what works (in a long term setting), due to lack of PTS involvement and insta-rage.

OPs idea's seem great, but maybe they are bad or create new problems. No way to tell.

[Sug]

I definitely haven't heard these ideas every month or so since 2012.

[Livewyr]

MarineErrant, on 12 April 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

I disagree with reticle sway. Fire control computers are there for a reason and this is one of them. MBT's do it, why not mechs?

As I explained to someone else who raised the same concern.
1: Weapon stabilizers do wonders, however they aren't perfect. (I have experience in this particular arena.)
2: Those very good stabilizers are for wheeled vehicles, walkers (repeated impact vehicles) are a much different story.

MeiSooHaityu, on 12 April 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

Its hard to get too detailed on the phone .

1. Just comes down to fun. I think it is funner to shoot and hit what you point at vs having shots randomly hit within a cone (ret sway). Plus does light get impacted as much as heavies? Can't have lights stop or slow down to shoot. Does it eliminate hill poking because the reticule shakes too much. Popping from cover is important for protection and trading shots. I just don't like reticule shake other than JJs or MASC. That's just me.

4. C. I think if you have LoS, then you see and can target your opponent. I don't see why TAG or NARC is necessary. F. I just feel you should know when missiles are inbound.

5. Maybe some of it is ok. I like BAP as an ECM counter and I think UAVs should see ECM mechs (since it has an LoS of sorts). The rest is ok I guess, but honestly none of it feels like anything I'm excited about.

6. Like all balance, it is better to tweak as you go. Besides, missiles, ballistics, PPCs, and lasers can cause overheat and heat penalties. Altering lasers only for an effect caused by all weapons seems a bit premature. I'd hold off on laser only balance (at least short term).

7. Locking JJs to all or nothing doesn't seem to really solve anything IMO. Maybe it is to tie up crit space and tonnage, but it seems to punish mediums or lights too much. Just not a fan.

1:
a- it wouldn't be entirely random- weapons would go to where the reticle is, but the reticle would move. according to speed and power.
b- The amount of sway would be a an average of engine power as well as actual speed. (To be more detailed.) Going 40kph for a light only costs about 30% engine power, whereas for an atlas it would be closer to 75%. The Atlas, stressing it's engine more and shoving greater bulk would have more reticle shake. At 100% throttle, the Light mech would have more reticle shake given that it is going 3 times as fast as the Atlas. (The price of speed.)
c: As to whether your reticle is shaking as you leave cover for a pop-up shot, it will depend on your speed and engine power. One could leave cover at a slower rate to remove reticle shake at all for a clean shot, or they could jet out of cover and either shoot trying compensate for the sway, or slow down enough to reduce the sway. Or, somewhere in between. (RIsk vs. Reward.)

4:
a-I think we have a miscommunication here, I said indirect fire requires TAG/Narc. (Indirect being non-line of site as opposed to direct which is LoS)
b- we could opt for a reduced warning as suggested, but I don't think people should know as soon as the missiles leave the tube.
missiles move fairly slowly (even the increased speed ones) and in this case would have reduced agility making them not guaranteed hits in most situations.
We don't get warnings (anymore) when people target us for direct fire weapons, why should we get such early warnings for missiles?

5: I would think that if ECM is no longer providing the all-sensor stealth that it does now, it wouldn't need all those counters. Rather, it could just do its job of countering the level 2 information/missile enhancement tech. UAVs being locked out would still make it a worthwhile tool after it loses it's complete stealth.

6: I can see your point, and it wouldn't necessarily be implemented at the same time, I was just advancing to the next step of rebalancing lasers (since PGI is currently trying to balance them for current conditions) as they would have increased negatives with heat actually being a thing before shut down.

7:
a- One could make that argument for Endo and especailly Ferro for assaults. Those are all-or-nothing equips that punish assaults unfairly as equipping both would cripple the space in assault mechs being so limited they cannot mount anything. It is just the nature of a technology as to who can take advantage of it.
b- Light and medium mechs have lighter jumpjets. (.5 tons) as opposed to 1-2ton heavy/assault JJs.
I would think it would either be proportional, or slightly in the light/mediums' favor.
c- it would serve two purposes, it would simplify the jumpjets mechanics (rather than having to calculate jumps for 1 light JJ or 2 Heavy JJs, or 3 light JJs, etc...
d- It would create a wider build diversity, especially in mechs whose variant have different numbers of JJs. (spider)
e- it cuts down on min/max exploits. (Putting in 1 JJ just for the mid-hover snap turns...)

[thehiddenedge]

I agree with pretty much everything in the OP. Sounds more like the battletech game this was supposed to be.

Not too sure about the ECM though


Now if only we could get this on the PTS. I definitely agree with what you guys were saying about incentives to actually play on it. A bit of in-game advertising would help tons too. I doubt many people know such a thing exists.

Edited by thehiddenedge, 12 April 2016 - 01:07 PM.

[Malleus011]

Sug, on 12 April 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

I definitely haven't heard these ideas every month or so since 2012.

And yet they keep showing up ... wish we could get PGI to implement some of them.

[Marxman]

Its true that some of those ideas float around since way back then. However i agree with alot of them. Id love to have that game be a mech simulator instead of an arcade game.
That said, they could have done a way worse job. There is way more to this game than most shooter games ever had. And most of the compalins are about balance. And considering they choose the worst timeline to balance AND keep everyone happy, they are at a nice spot finaly. Tweaking things here and there will go on, new systems will either work or fail.

Still, id love to have a proper joystick support. Thats the one immersion breaker for me and that its not possible to get headtrackers to properly emulate the mouse in this game. ;(

[Thunder Child]

Well, as a long time MW and BT fan, I'd love to see these ideas implemented.

I miss JUMPJets.

And having seen that video of 1pv vs 3pv reticle sway, that's basically all it needs. Maybe exaggerate it a little bit more at higher throttles. But having something that discourages the 360 aerial no-scope (hyperbole, yes), and encourages B.O.W instead, would be a huge advance towards making this game more tactical, and less COD. Definitely NOT a WoT CoF though. The shots should still be predictable. Just not as easy while revving at 100% Throttle with 95% Heat.

Would also love to see more dynamics in the InfoWar department, instead of On/Off switches.

And lastly, a serious heat system, with lower Caps, but slightly faster dissipation. So no, you can't fire 6 MPulse and 2/3 LPulse all at once. But you can 3/3/2, within a few seconds. And have Heat PENALTIES. Heatsinks melting, weapons burning out, AC/s Perma-jamming because the barrels have warped, Ammo cooking off, Targeting systems going haywire, so many options for making things SCARY when you ride the Red Line, instead of just going "LOLALPHA...... LOLALPHA..... damn, my CT is slightly Yellow..... LOLALPHA".

[Malleus011]

(remember, you don't have to cook off the whole ton of ammo at once, guys ... just a little damage here an there would be awesome)

[Khobai]

reticle sway? why?

modern tanks have fire control systems that account for the tank moving when it shoots

why wouldnt mechs have that 1000 years later? reticle sway makes zero sense.


im not opposed to heat penalties though... but they have to be done right... not this nonsense some people want where mechs only have a max of 30 heat.

Edited by Khobai, 12 April 2016 - 01:53 PM.

[Livewyr]

Khobai, on 12 April 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

reticle sway? why?
Risk vs reward in gameplay.

modern tanks have fire control systems that account for the tank moving when it shoots
1: They aren't that good. (I know from personal/professional experience.)
2: Those are tracked vehicles, constant ground contact- not impact.

why wouldnt mechs have that 1000 years later? reticle sway makes zero sense.
For the same reason the longest range in the game is the same effective range as a modern medium machine gun. (LosTech... if you want to go that route.)

im not opposed to heat penalties though... but they have to be done right... not this nonsense some people want where mechs only have a max of 30 heat.

Indeed, heat penalties.

[Cabusha]

Lugh, on 12 April 2016 - 04:55 AM, said:

What pray tell are you smoking? Lasers are the TOP END GO TO WEAPON AT ALL RANGES. They don't need rebalancing in a way that makes them better. What they need, is an un-nerfing of their competition.

Lasers already kill targets too fast, so let's make everything kill targets too fast! Brilliant!!!

[Livewyr]

Cabusha, on 12 April 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Lasers already kill targets too fast, so let's make everything kill targets too fast! Brilliant!!!

Reading is important.

Information is ammunition!