287 replies to this topic

[STEF_]

AnimeFreak40K, on 31 May 2016 - 03:45 PM, said:

Yes, I am one such person. I never cared for BattleTech or MechWarrior...I always wanted to because I like giant robots, but the artwork and designs were always so terrible that I just couldn't. I'm here because I like giant stompy robots and these giant stompy robots look great and are fun to play.

So you are basicly saying that you are the perfect kind of player PGI loves, because they could and still can deliver only a bunch of nice polygons and selling each of them for a full game price.... in a beta game still without any content.
Unless for u a 5 minutes skirmish, drop and repeat,...is a content... LOLOL


So yes, we cannot have nice things because of you and ppl like you that NEVER CARED ABOUT BT or MW.
But still here.

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 01 June 2016 - 02:10 AM.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Karl Streiger, on 01 June 2016 - 01:44 AM, said:

and the stats are poorly translated
to make things clear: Stock Mechs work simply because of SHS and the reduced payload of Mechs.
Anyhow, when i have the choice wich mech to bring into a Stock Mech fight I may choose a better over a weaker one. Although sometimes you can let the engine work in your favour.
BLR-1G vs BLR-1D; most would take the 1D, ignoring the burst damage the 1G can deal in a short period

Well if stock Mech make into this game - i want 100% random 4vs4 battles.... you just drop in a random Mech - deal with it.

Base Stats are directly taken and are just same. Stock Mode do not work only be cause single heat sinks, we played this with tech 2 and Clan vs IS as well, to great pleasure and success, but still 3025 Stock its the most classic and known, so the most popular as well. And most meks we got in game are classic 3025.
Something is better for you, does not mean is better for everybody. Maybe 1D is better for you, while I would pick up 1G. To be honest, I think most players that I remember in events took 1G. Its not as obvious as you paint to be. In Stock you clearly see trade offs of the mek designs. Of course if you dig long enough you will find some single variants that are something like goblins, halfings and vamps for Blood Bowl, if you are not familiar with a game I mean, little weaker by design to give fun and challenge to those who want it. Like Urbie, or SH-2D2. Some designs are just not noob friendly and needs just more skill and understandings to use properly, but one get it offer whole new fine game play experience. Overall there is not bad chassis in Stock, is far better balanced towards diversity out of the gate then any other MWO incarnation that we had by all those years.

[oldradagast]

AnimeFreak40K, on 31 May 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

...i think the point he was getting at is that stock mechs work only when everybody runs stock mechs...

That is part of it, but there is also a few other points:

- Some stock mechs are objectively better than others.
- Stock mechs are rated on a battle value system to fill-out point cost in an army. In such a game, one person may have 3 mechs and another may have 9 weaker ones to total to the same value. In MWO, however, you have the exact same number of mechs per side. So, the weaker stock mechs are literally just weaker junk in MWO - you don't get any of the added benefit you'd get in tabletop from them having a lower battle value.
- All of this runs into further problems with each person having only 1 mech in MWO vs. having 1 army. So, if you're in a crappy mech and die fast, tough luck for you.

Long story short, a billion hours of gameplay in stock battles proves nothing but some people enjoy the mode. That's fine, but it has objective problems as detailed above and is not some sort of magic solution to the game's balance problems. I'm not opposed to them adding it, but it fixes nothing with the game and will rapidly stagnant into a handful of viable stock mechs with the only exceptions being people who like to play sub-optimal builds for lore or flavor reasons. There's nothing wrong with that, but we already have that, too.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Before BV, BT used just tons.
And here for needs of 3025 Stock Mode tons balancing is good enough.

If game play in a game is not proof then what is? Your logic is flawed.
It fix quiet many things.
Its add something really new and fun.

Some of us liked to play it for BT flavor, but in reality we played be cause better game play and overall balance and that even without tweaks to main MWO mechanics.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 01 June 2016 - 03:45 AM.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

WoT taps into a larger audience. There are a lot of people generally interested in tanks, the military, history, experience playing other popular games like battlefield etc.

MWO is tapping into a relatively specific audience. It's probably majority people that already have experience with Battletech or Mechwarrior, which is already a relatively small fandom.

WoT gameplay is arcade-leaning, and Wargaming is free to define game mechanics to their own whims. It's relatively accessible to new players (though not as accessible as Overwatch/TF2/CS:GO and other conventional FPS games) and it generally doesn't punish players too harshly for mistakes. Progression is linear and intuitive. You start with simple, weak tanks and build your way up through objectively more powerful vehicles.

MWO gameplay is simulator-leaning in that it's shackled to an existing ruleset. The game is much less accessible as trying to optimize a minor tweak of a build can cost several times more than what you might have originally spent on a battlemech. Progression basically requires some meta knowledge, which hurts the new player experience. New players get the whole buffet throw at them and are basically expected to know how to pick out the best or most enjoyable parts.

MWO mostly struggles because it depends a lot upon Battletech diehards, but this reliance also puts PGI in a difficult position, since any decision to make the game more welcoming to a broader audience with no Battletech reference potentially alienates the core fanbase- for example 3rd person.

WoT is actually not that popular in the grand scheme of things, but it suffers a lot less than MWO chiefly because it just addresses a larger audience. It also helps that it was first into the market and defined this genre of vehicle-based MOBAs.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

vnlk65n, on 01 June 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

The game is much less accessible as trying to optimize a minor tweak of a build can cost several times more than what you might have originally spent on a battlemech. Progression basically requires some meta knowledge, which hurts the new player experience. New players get the whole buffet throw at them and are basically expected to know how to pick out the best or most enjoyable parts.

MWO mostly struggles because it depends a lot upon Battletech diehards, but this reliance also puts PGI in a difficult position, since any decision to make the game more welcoming to a broader audience with no Battletech reference potentially alienates the core fanbase- for example 3rd person.

Stock Mode, is more accessible and you don`t have to know any meta load outs. TTK is slower so you will not pop out instantly and will have more time and actual chance to learn better the game. Stock Mode is far more friendly to new users.

Stock Mode is also something that all BatteTech diehard fans wants and can be more welcoming to a broader audience.
So Stock Mode is probably the only thing that can bring back BatteTech fans that founded this game and left it be cause of lacks BT feeling in BT game and in the same time is friendly to no experienced user.
win/win

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 01 June 2016 - 05:04 AM.

[Mavairo]

LordKnightFandragon, on 31 May 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

Yeah, in a Coop PVE setting. 4 players per team, or you can go with the 12 man raids, complete with AI tanks, mechs, planes, dropships, artillery vehicles...the whole gambit.



I am not even past T2 in that game, I got bored to tears real quick for starters, then the RNG ****, yeah, it drove me batty. As for leading my targets, I know, my very first game I scored top of my team by a mile, though it was a loss lol....I was like the only one doing anything.

I was one shot by a torpedo, but that was cuz I wasnt paying attention, but yeah, overall, I find that game just ******** as hell.

It looks like it might be aight if we can get past the low tier ****, but its a Wargaming game and after WOT, I really loathe WG...

Hit me up in WOWs, I'll bring my South Carolina out of retirement and we can get you to some decent ships.
Once you hit Tier 3 (Which doesn't take long at all honestly, just a couple battles.), the game improves dramatically.
I'm guessing you are in Chester The Molester, if you hate the game? The Chester is the worst piece of crap in the game...imo it's worse by far than the Eerie that came before it, by a country mile.
The T2 IJN, German, and russian cruisers are much better ships than the Chester.
Once you get the St Louis in the USN line..the thing is a god send. MUCH better armor, much better guns, much better shell arcs and trajectory.

My handle there is the same as here. Mavairo .

[Helene de Montfort]

oldradagast, on 01 June 2016 - 03:24 AM, said:

- Stock mechs are rated on a battle value system to fill-out point cost in an army. In such a game, one person may have 3 mechs and another may have 9 weaker ones to total to the same value. In MWO, however, you have the exact same number of mechs per side. So, the weaker stock mechs are literally just weaker junk in MWO - you don't get any of the added benefit you'd get in tabletop from them having a lower battle value.

Err, no.... Most games with TT we were doing 4 vs 4 mechs, lance vs lance, and we had a BV pool to chose our mechs. So you could have a lance with a couple very good mechs, and the two others the best you could have with remaining BV, or make a balanced lance with 4 average mechs. Or any other combination as long as you still had your 4 mechs.

But 4 vs 4 was optimal while using only two TT maps.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

WoT has a large population because:
1. It was first vehicle-based mmo
2. It's casual enough for anybody to jump in, basically an arcade game
3. Uses a very popular theme (who doesn't like tanks?)
4. Feeds of nostalgia, sells war machines already highly glorified in pop culture, national propaganda, feeds on national pride
5. Hands vehicles generously at first, delays the actual grind until you're engaged in the game
6. Manipulates its own mechanics so that even most incompetent players can feel super good from time to time.
7. No high expectations, no veterans of the franchise bringing single player game expectations/AAA game expectation into a basically crowdfunded game in ongoing progress (yes, the WoT was never had any 1.0 version too), then going around the internet badmouthing the game for years.

That's it. Anybody thinking that has anything to do anything with competence or quality is kidding themselves.

Constant beta in MWO? The actual current version of WoT is 0.915...

Better, more competent devs in WoT? Yeah right. I have no knowledge of the current game status, but in 2015, WoT engine was still able to use only 1 CPU core(!), causing problems with performance on many systems. And when they've introduced better tank models somewhere in 2014, they did it so badly, those models actually froze the game for about a second for many players every time these models came up into view.

For the total 5 "quick play" modes developed in WoT, 2 were so bad they had to be removed from the game. These were both "nation vs nation" modes. This also speaks a lot about the game balance, when you can't pit one 'faction' against another, because 'faction' 1 turned out to win 90% of the time.

Also, WoT features tanks that have (historically and in game models) multiple cannons, but no already stated that they are NOT going to make those additional cannons work. Making 2 guns functional at once on 1 war machine seems too difficult for them. Minimally viable product anyone?

Unkept promises? WoT has 30vs30 mode in development since... well, forever?

Grind? Grind there is much worse, only disguised by throwing a bunch of entry-level machines on the player at first. Then it equals with that of MWO, then it exceeds it more and more.

[Alan Davion]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 01 June 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

Also, WoT features tanks that have (historically and in game models) multiple cannons, but no already stated that they are NOT going to make those additional cannons work. Making 2 guns functional at once on 1 war machine seems too difficult for them. Minimally viable product anyone?

And yet World of Warships has you firing multiple guns constantly. I call BS on this statement.

[Alek Ituin]

Alan Davion, on 01 June 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

And yet World of Warships has you firing multiple guns constantly. I call BS on this statement.

And yet they still haven't made functional multi-turret tanks in WoT.

Gaijooby did it in WT basically from word go, which was incredibly surprising to just about everyone... Mostly because they're f**king incompetent morons that can't release a functional vehicle to save their lives.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Alan Davion, on 01 June 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

And yet World of Warships has you firing multiple guns constantly. I call BS on this statement.

Alek Ituin, on 01 June 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

And yet they still haven't made functional multi-turret tanks in WoT.

Gaijooby did it in WT basically from word go, which was incredibly surprising to just about everyone... Mostly because they're f**king incompetent morons that can't release a functional vehicle to save their lives.

Yes, they made multiple guns in WOWs from the start, but refuse to do in WoT. Funny, huh?
My point is not to prove that WoT devs are terrible human beings or anything (even if I thought they were, that's not relevant). My point was do provide examples how literally EVERY vehicle-based pvp mmo developer have similar issues to those many attribute to Russ&Friends only. Some people bash MWO relentlessly because of problems every other game like that has and always had. In all of hem, there are years-old problems unsolved, dumb design decisions, neverending balance issues, grind, bugged patches.

I find it funny, because one of the reasons I chose MWO after WoT and WT is that MWO actually has FEVER issues that annoy me. There is no vehicle tiers that force you to play the underdog every 2nd battle and make playing high tier vehicles consume more money that it brings, no neverending crew xp accumulation mechanics making vehicles of older/paying customers always perform better than of those who played less, no gold ammo, the gap between unleveled and leveled machines is many times smaller than in those other titles (both WoT and WT basically force you to go into your first X battles in stock vehicles, because you have to grind xp to unlock every non-stock weapon, engine, suspension, turret, ammo belt etc etc.)

Fun fact: You know how did WT team solved the unavoidable hitreg issues with multiple fast-firing weapons shooting at once on their planes? They've coded the game to check for damage only every 0,5 seconds or so. They did it for planes, that are in 90% of the cases armed in machineguns! In consequence there is NO difference whether you pump your enemy full of lead or just fire in very short bursts to conserve ammo, or whether you managed to hold the enemy in sights for half a second (and pumped several rounds into him) or just touched him with a single bullet - the damage registered will be the same. 'Clever', huh?

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 01 June 2016 - 08:48 AM.

[SilentWolff]

Delta 62, on 30 May 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

WHY DOES WORLD OF TANKS HAVE A BIGGER POPULATION?

Because PGI are the worst devs on the planet. Clueless inept liars on top of it.

[dervishx5]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 01 June 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

Before BV, BT used just tons.
And here for needs of 3025 Stock Mode tons balancing is good enough.

If game play in a game is not proof then what is? Your logic is flawed.
It fix quiet many things.
Its add something really new and fun.

Some of us liked to play it for BT flavor, but in reality we played be cause better game play and overall balance and that even without tweaks to main MWO mechanics.

Why do you think battle value was designed?

[RedDragon]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 01 June 2016 - 08:42 AM, said:

Fun fact: You know how did WT team solved the unavoidable hitreg issues with multiple fast-firing weapons shooting at once on their planes? They've coded the game to check for damage only every 0,5 seconds or so. They did it for planes, that are in 90% of the cases armed in machineguns! In consequence there is NO difference whether you pump your enemy full of lead or just fire in very short bursts to conserve ammo, or whether you managed to hold the enemy in sights for half a second (and pumped several rounds into him) or just touched him with a single bullet - the damage registered will be the same. 'Clever', huh?

I'd really like to have a source on this.

[C E Dwyer]

Sjorpha, on 31 May 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

Convergence is when several weapons adjust to hit the same target at a given distance, in wot you normally shoot only one gun so there is no need for convergence. I really doubt wot has a convergence system, doesn't make much sense when there are so few multi weapon salvos, but maybe it does have it for the odd case.

MWO has convergence, that's why we can put so much focused damage with many weapons. The usual complaint is that convergence is too good and too fast.

aim time then

[Nik Reaper]

Interesting fact, PGI when designing the HSR protocol also made this mistake but it didn't take them too long to figure it out X) and up the detection frequency.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 01 June 2016 - 11:28 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Alan Davion, on 01 June 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

And yet World of Warships has you firing multiple guns constantly. I call BS on this statement.

I'll further mention in world of Warships you have the choice of a singe, ripple or salvo shots.

[C E Dwyer]

dervishx5, on 31 May 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

I think many of the WoT guys have moved on to warthunder or world of warships

not likely to be Warthunder, after all the *** hat things Gajun have pulled.

If they ever read this post, I'll find my free account banned lol

[Narcissistic Martyr]

dervishx5, on 01 June 2016 - 09:51 AM, said:

Why do you think battle value was designed?

To help create evenish fights for people who wanted to IS vs clan battles mostly