819 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Hotthedd, on 12 August 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

You asserted that most of the BT fans that originally backed MW:O, but have since left, left because they didn't research the game and expected something different.
That is simply hard to believe. It would make more sense to say they left because they DID research the game, and got something different than was sold to them.

To be fair... noone really researched PGI until the disappointments (however they have been perceived) came in.

Hard to set expectations if you don't know what you're getting into. This is probably why Harebrained Schemes is getting more play around here.

[Hotthedd]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Is it change for the sake of change, though? I think it isn't. It is change because the original is non-viable as both a story and a game.

You obviously think it is non-viable. Many people disagree. I wish that PGI had at least tried it first.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Making us fire one weapon at a time is not very sim-like. Sim implies a certain level of realism, and if we're going there then realistically, the engineers of the world would be developing 'Mechs (accepting that 'Mechs will be a thing) that can punch through other 'Mechs in as little time as possible...meaning either group fire or supremely effective single weapons.

Sim for a BattleMech is having to choose whether to fire one weapon at a time for accuracy or fire multiples for raw, but less accurate damage. It was the main reason behind the creation of the Binary laser. And BattleMechs in the BT universe were not things that "could be punched through in as little time as possible".
Consider Alexis Vanharobik: Her shot of hitting a stationary target 600m away with two Gauss rounds fired simultaneously was so incredible that it won the planet of Courchevel in a Trial of Possession.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

What makes MWO un sim-like is the fact that physics is ignored more often than it is simulated.

True, so ignoring the physical improbability of a BattleMech firing several weapons simultaneously and hitting the same spot on a target is un sim-like, right? And the opposite of "sim" is "arcade".

Deathlike, on 12 August 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

To be fair... noone really researched PGI until the disappointments (however they have been perceived) came in.

Hard to set expectations if you don't know what you're getting into. This is probably why Harebrained Schemes is getting more play around here.

Liked for truth.
But I am one of those who waited for open beta before I took the plunge.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 12 August 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

You obviously think it is non-viable. Many people disagree. I wish that PGI had at least tried it first.

Jordan Weisman is another one who thinks that it is non-viable. No, really. In the upcoming PC BattleTech game, he has already modified some of the game rules to be different from Tabletop. For example, go read the Kickstarter update #26 for the new "turn order" system. The video clip of their pre-alpha combat also had some altered values like damage and armor/structure.

Given that the PC BT game will be turn-based, it is especially significant and surprising that rules are being tweaked over there.

Here is the punchline: If Jordan W, one of the original creators of BT, is willing to play with the rules to make his game better, why aren't you?

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 12 August 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

Jordan Weisman is another one who thinks that it is non-viable. No, really. In the upcoming PC BattleTech game, he has already modified some of the game rules to be different from Tabletop. For example, go read the Kickstarter update #26 for the new "turn order" system. The video clip of their pre-alpha combat also had some altered values like damage and armor/structure.

Given that the PC BT game will be turn-based, it is especially significant and surprising that rules are being tweaked over there.

Here is the punchline: If Jordan W, one of the original creators of BT, is willing to play with the rules to make his game better, why aren't you?

Maybe he's dead to him.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 12 August 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

Jordan Weisman is another one who thinks that it is non-viable. No, really. In the upcoming PC BattleTech game, he has already modified some of the game rules to be different from Tabletop. For example, go read the Kickstarter update #26 for the new "turn order" system. The video clip of their pre-alpha combat also had some altered values like damage and armor/structure.

I never said values should never be altered for FPS balance, and we do not have "initiative rolls" in a FPS, so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Given that the PC BT game will be turn-based, it is especially significant and surprising that rules are being tweaked over there.

Tweaked. Altered, but I am unaware of any attempts to make the game less BattleTech. (TT =/= BT)

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 11:20 AM, said:

Here is the punchline: If Jordan W, one of the original creators of BT, is willing to play with the rules to make his game better, why aren't you?

Appeal to Authority fallacy.
And I never said I was against any rule changes for the sake of balance. My argument is simply about allowing chain fire to be viable, instead of group fire and alphas to be the default mode of playing, and the only way to play and still be competitive. And my reasons behind that argument have to do with remaining true to the BT universe.
Jordan Weisman is not doing anything to detract from the BT universe in his game.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 12 August 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

Right. And in TT, alpha striking just meant firing all of your weapons over 10 seconds, and in the BT universe, alpha striking was firing all of your weapons at once, knowing that the damage would be all over the place, and some weapons would not hit at all. The video games couldn't approximate that, so they dumbed it down.

Straw man.
Saying that a Std 400 charger with small lasers isn't viable does not mean that chain fired weapons shouldn't.

...so PGI should cater to this crowd?

You asserted that most of the BT fans that originally backed MW:O, but have since left, left because they didn't research the game and expected something different.
That is simply hard to believe. It would make more sense to say they left because they DID research the game, and got something different than was sold to them.

You could also argue that variable convergence based on the range that your reticle is at is much more advanced than the constant convergence value of old. Having weapons hit random locations on a mech when you alpha like in TT is dice rolling, pretty basic stuff to code, so I would argue that they could DEFINITELY code dice rolling in the 90s. No problem. Have you played Golden Eye on N64? Cone of fire galore, if you can code that in 97, you can figure out random weapon locations in 95. Doom II, 94, shot gun behaves like you would want alpha strikes to behave like, no problem.

A counter example isn't a straw man. You said you wanted more playstyles viable, I said some will never be viable, like exhibit A.

No it shouldn't. So why should it cater to the crowd of people who were expecting a single player campaign like feel with a PvP MechWarrior game? You didn't disprove anything I said btw.. you were the one defending the people who saw this game and expected one thing and get another.

MechWarrior... I would have never expected a game with Ghost Heat, let alone Energy draw, or any other arbitrary limits on group firing weapons. Fixed convergence I could see, but not things that punish you for firing more than one weapon at a time. That doesn't sound like the MechWarrior I remember.

Its not a matter of research at all. We can drop this though because you clearly aren't understanding how different people can read something and draw completely different conclusions and expectations from it. It happens all the time... I guarantee the game sold never described "Hey so you might die real quick if you screw up". That's not something you can research, its something you have to experience.

[KahnWongFuChung]

The answer to you MR.OP is no!

All the decisions about MWO are the result of Russ Listing to his BUTTT BUDDY unit leaders and thats all that gets put into MWO anymore so that's why a lot of players leave the game and wont stay pay and support MWO or PGI any longer.

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, 12 August 2016 - 11:58 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Gas Guzzler, on 12 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

You could also argue that variable convergence based on the range that your reticle is at is much more advanced than the constant convergence value of old. Having weapons hit random locations on a mech when you alpha like in TT is dice rolling, pretty basic stuff to code, so I would argue that they could DEFINITELY code dice rolling in the 90s. No problem. Have you played Golden Eye on N64? Cone of fire galore, if you can code that in 97, you can figure out random weapon locations in 95. Doom II, 94, shot gun behaves like you would want alpha strikes to behave like, no problem.

The original MechWarrior was in the late 80's if I remember correctly. I am not sure that there was enough memory to have both a CoF and precision targeting, but even if so, it only argues one of the reasons the games were designed that way.

Gas Guzzler, on 12 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

A counter example isn't a straw man. You said you wanted more playstyles viable, I said some will never be viable, like exhibit A.

It wasn't a counter argument, it was a similarity argument that you then tore down. That is what a straw man is.

Gas Guzzler, on 12 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

No it shouldn't. So why should it cater to the crowd of people who were expecting a single player campaign like feel with a PvP MechWarrior game? You didn't disprove anything I said btw.. you were the one defending the people who saw this game and expected one thing and get another.

If you read closely, I do not believe most of the founders who left were expecting a single player campaign.
I believe PGI would be wise to try to make the game that caused so many people to excitedly put up money for them to create. Where I come from, that is called "integrity".

Gas Guzzler, on 12 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

MechWarrior... I would have never expected a game with Ghost Heat, let alone Energy draw, or any other arbitrary limits on group firing weapons. Fixed convergence I could see, but not things that punish you for firing more than one weapon at a time. That doesn't sound like the MechWarrior I remember.

That would be because your experience with the BT universe begins and ends with a couple of old video games. If implemented correctly, we would not need ghost heat or power draw.

Gas Guzzler, on 12 August 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Its not a matter of research at all. We can drop this though because you clearly aren't understanding how different people can read something and draw completely different conclusions and expectations from it. It happens all the time... I guarantee the game sold never described "Hey so you might die real quick if you screw up". That's not something you can research, its something you have to experience.

I suppose people could have researched MW:O, actually researched it, and thought it would be a MechCommander arcade game FPS.
...but those would have been some really stupid people.

[Johnny Z]

Everyone is off topic. Half derailing the topic saying this game is bad or what not.

Topic closed.

* My mod status hasn't been updated yet. Oops.

When I get to be a mod, its forum bans all around. Argue with me will you? I think not.

Edited by Johnny Z, 12 August 2016 - 12:27 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Hotthedd, on 12 August 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

I never said values should never be altered for FPS balance, and we do not have "initiative rolls" in a FPS, so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Tweaked. Altered, but I am unaware of any attempts to make the game less BattleTech. (TT =/= BT)

Appeal to Authority fallacy.
And I never said I was against any rule changes for the sake of balance. My argument is simply about allowing chain fire to be viable, instead of group fire and alphas to be the default mode of playing, and the only way to play and still be competitive. And my reasons behind that argument have to do with remaining true to the BT universe.
Jordan Weisman is not doing anything to detract from the BT universe in his game.

How did you manage to get my name in the quotes, there? Everything in it is FupDup's words.

[Spleenslitta]

I do want Energy Draw BUT...i did not want it to be so....poorly thought out.
Firing a weapon that makes something similar to artificial lightning (PPC) takes the same amount of energy as firing a big bore cannon (AC10)?

It doesn't make sense.
Furthermore i sincerely doubt it will increase TTK by much which was the maingoal of this system.

[Y E O N N E]

Hotthedd, on 12 August 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

You obviously think it is non-viable. Many people disagree. I wish that PGI had at least tried it first.

Maybe, but they didn't. Why should they start now when what they have going on works perfectly fine? The only people who seem to complain are the same people who either didn't read or willfully ignored the original premise for MechWarrior: Online and keep trying to force Table-Top-informed fluff onto it.

Quote

Sim for a BattleMech is having to choose whether to fire one weapon at a time for accuracy or fire multiples for raw, but less accurate damage. It was the main reason behind the creation of the Binary laser. And BattleMechs in the BT universe were not things that "could be punched through in as little time as possible".
Consider Alexis Vanharobik: Her shot of hitting a stationary target 600m away with two Gauss rounds fired simultaneously was so incredible that it won the planet of Courchevel in a Trial of Possession.

The fact that you are paraphrasing a part of a story featuring such an asinine premise kind of makes my case for me. What is truly incredible is that such a thing is incredible. Why is this good fiction, to you?

Quote

True, so ignoring the physical improbability of a BattleMech firing several weapons simultaneously and hitting the same spot on a target is un sim-like, right? And the opposite of "sim" is "arcade".

Featured: a rule meant to prevent a dice-rolling game from being over in five seconds which had some technical fluff back-fit to try and explain it even though the creators know better being treated as believable, even desirable, in a context in which it would never happen that way because that's not how human economics and decision-making work.

Again, why is this good fiction, to you?

By nature of the genre, you cannot use Rule-of-Cool to govern everything that happens in a sim...which is what you are trying to argue for. Especially not things that are extremely well-understood in the real world.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 12 August 2016 - 01:01 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hotthedd, on 12 August 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

The original MechWarrior was in the late 80's if I remember correctly. I am not sure that there was enough memory to have both a CoF and precision targeting, but even if so, it only argues one of the reasons the games were designed that way.

It wasn't a counter argument, it was a similarity argument that you then tore down. That is what a straw man is.

If you read closely, I do not believe most of the founders who left were expecting a single player campaign.
I believe PGI would be wise to try to make the game that caused so many people to excitedly put up money for them to create. Where I come from, that is called "integrity".

That would be because your experience with the BT universe begins and ends with a couple of old video games. If implemented correctly, we would not need ghost heat or power draw.

I suppose people could have researched MW:O, actually researched it, and thought it would be a MechCommander arcade game FPS.
...but those would have been some really stupid people.

I just...

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Maybe, but they didn't. Why should they start now when what they have going on works perfectly fine? The only people who seem to complain are the same people who either didn't read or willfully ignored the original premise for MechWarrior: Online and keep trying to force Table-Top-informed fluff onto it.



The fact that you are paraphrasing a part of a story featuring such an asinine premise kind of makes my case for me. What is truly incredible is that such a thing is incredible. Why is this good fiction, to you?



Featured: a rule meant to prevent a dice-rolling game from being over in five seconds which had some technical fluff back-fit to try and explain it even though the creators know better being treated as believable, even desirable, in a context in which it would never happen that way because that's not how human economics and decision-making work.

Again, why is this good fiction, to you?

By nature of the genre, you cannot use Rule-of-Cool to govern everything that happens in a sim...which is what you are trying to argue for. Especially not things that are extremely well-understood in the real world.

As a bit of a sidebar, I don't think that the Rule-of-Cool even supports Hotty here. The fantasy of mechs standing still and chain-firing weapons for 10 seconds and missing half of those shots isn't what I would consider to be "cool." That kind of gameplay would make my mech feel weak and useless as a combat vehicle.

Being able to fire multiple guns at a time also fulfills an inner psychological need for MOAR DAKKA.



It makes mechs feel like actually powerful, fearsome weapon platforms that shouldn't be reckoned with. Chainfiring everything makes mechs feel flaccid and wimpy. The current gameplay style is "cooler" than Hotty's suggestions.

Edited by FupDup, 12 August 2016 - 01:10 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

By the way, even if Energy Draw tests poorly, I would be all for a HUD indicator for Ghost Heat. That would help a lot for the "difficult to understand" nature of it, because if that indicator shows you that you are getting a heat penalty, its easier to figure out why once you know its happening.

[Hotthedd]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:29 PM, said:

How did you manage to get my name in the quotes, there? Everything in it is FupDup's words.

My first thought is that it must be a bug feature of the forums, But most likely I pasted the wrong header in my reply.

My apologies.

[Requiemking]

FupDup, on 12 August 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

As a bit of a sidebar, I don't think that the Rule-of-Cool even supports Hotty here. The fantasy of mechs standing still and chain-firing weapons for 10 seconds and missing half of those shots isn't what I would consider to be "cool." That kind of gameplay would make my mech feel weak and useless as a combat vehicle.

Being able to fire multiple guns at a time also fulfills an inner psychological need for MOAR DAKKA.

It makes mechs feel like actually powerful, fearsome weapon platforms that shouldn't be reckoned with. Chainfiring everything makes mechs feel flaccid and wimpy. The current gameplay style is "cooler" than Hotty's suggestions.

The problem is the people are tired of AlphaWarrior Online and want more builds to be viable than things like the old Quad UAC10 Kodiak. That mech represented the biggest problem with MWO, that being that Boating was taking over the game. Swiss Army mechs were not considered "good" because they couldn't vomit 80 points of damage in a single button press. With energy draw, hopefully the older mixed builds will be good enough to make a resurgence, such as the Trial Orion. That mech is, as things stand now, a relic of a bygone age, when mixed builds were actually considered useful. But, with energy draw, mechs like that could become "good" again.

Edited by Requiemking, 12 August 2016 - 01:33 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Requiemking, on 12 August 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

The problem is the people are tired of AlphaWarrior Online and want more builds to be viable than things like the old Quad UAC10 Kodiak. That mech represented the biggest problem with MWO, that being that Boating was taking over the game. Swiss Army mechs were not considered "good" because they couldn't vomit 80 points of damage in a single button press. With energy draw, hopefully the older mixed builds will be good enough to make a resurgence, such as the Trial Orion. That mech is, as things stand now, a relic of a bygone age, when mixed builds were actually considered. But, with energy draw, mechs like that could become "good" again.

This is the problem though. They will not become good again. Everyone will shift to the next best thing, the next best way to put out whatever the arbitrary damage limit is. Want a good Orion? You can put an AC20 and 3 SRM6s with Artemis on the VA and go to town with it as long as you can get into a brawl. Mixed builds occur, its just typically a mix of 2 different weapon types. Mixing a third in is typically not as desirable as more ammo or heatsinks.

[FupDup]

Requiemking, on 12 August 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

The problem is the people are tired of AlphaWarrior Online and want more builds to be viable than things like the old Quad UAC10 Kodiak. That mech represented the biggest problem with MWO, that being that Boating was taking over the game. Swiss Army mechs were not considered "good" because they couldn't vomit 80 points of damage in a single button press. With energy draw, hopefully the older mixed builds will be good enough to make a resurgence, such as the Trial Orion. That mech is, as things stand now, a relic of a bygone age, when mixed builds were actually considered useful. But, with energy draw, mechs like that could become "good" again.

The "swiss army" mechs were never truly good. They only seemed okay when being pitted against other such designs. Even in TT, a mech focused on a specific range will kill its target more quickly than a "bracket build" will. For example, an Atlas modified to have its LRM20 replaced with SRMs and heatsinks will be more powerful in brawling than the stock Atlas that uses the LRM20.

The DakkaBear in MWO is just the latest in a long tradition starting since then 1980s.

[Hotthedd]

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Maybe, but they didn't. Why should they start now when what they have going on works perfectly fine? The only people who seem to complain are the same people who either didn't read or willfully ignored the original premise for MechWarrior: Online and keep trying to force Table-Top-informed fluff onto it.

Because everything doesn't work perfectly fine. If it did, there would be no "energy draw" discussion in the first place. On top of that, I believe there is more money, and more longevity in getting those that have left back than in trying to appeal to the comp crowd. The original premise for MW:O promised a sim-lite, and a very immersive BT experience. Not this.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

The fact that you are paraphrasing a part of a story featuring such an asinine premise kind of makes my case for me. What is truly incredible is that such a thing is incredible. Why is this good fiction, to you?

Whether you think it is asinine is irrelevant. The dystopian future of the BT universe is this game's setting. Therefore, this is what the game should be trying to emulate.

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Featured: a rule meant to prevent a dice-rolling game from being over in five seconds which had some technical fluff back-fit to try and explain it even though the creators know better being treated as believable, even desirable, in a context in which it would never happen that way because that's not how human economics and decision-making work.

In what universe, real or imagined, is it realistic to expect several weapons fired simultaneously to all converge on the same dynamic spot?

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Again, why is this good fiction, to you?

Why is insta magic perfectly precise convergence good fiction to you?

Yeonne Greene, on 12 August 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

By nature of the genre, you cannot use Rule-of-Cool to govern everything that happens in a sim...which is what you are trying to argue for. Especially not things that are extremely well-understood in the real world.

Please, give me some real-world physics examples of multiple weapons hitting the same component of a target perfectly precisely at several different ranges.