33 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

The majority of MWO players don't actually want a combat sim. They want an arcade game without inconvenience. The idea that their mech might fall down or that trees will obscure vision is obscene to them.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 03 August 2016 - 03:11 AM.

[pyrocomp]

Alistair Winter, on 03 August 2016 - 03:10 AM, said:

The majority of MWO players don't actually want a combat sim. They want an arcade game without inconvenience. The idea that their mech might fall down or that trees will obscure vision is obscene to them.

At present I bet the majority of players does not care. The PGI thinks that majority of players want the arcade game, which is different thing.
But at any rate slow gradual introduction of collisions and collision damage just might get through well.

[Amsro]

pyrocomp, on 03 August 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

At present I bet the majority of players does not care. The PGI thinks that majority of players want the arcade game, which is different thing.
But at any rate slow gradual introduction of collisions and collision damage just might get through well.

I don't see it happening until they switch the game to a new engine, which is basically starting new.

[ice trey]

Knockdowns would have made more sense if there was some sort of way to fight against the fall. Something to emulate the same "Piloting Skill Roll" or PSR from tabletop Battletech. Of course, it wouldn't be dice but something that required snap mech maneuvering to keep the mech balanced.

Unfortunately, it really doesn't look like that'd ever happen.

I thought up a whole concept based on a helicopter training game that they used to have at my local aviation museum where you had to balance a ball bearing in the center of a plate that was controlled by a joystick...

[Steinar Bergstol]

ice trey, on 03 August 2016 - 03:33 AM, said:

Knockdowns would have made more sense if there was some sort of way to fight against the fall. Something to emulate the same "Piloting Skill Roll" or PSR from tabletop Battletech. Of course, it wouldn't be dice but something that required snap mech maneuvering to keep the mech balanced.

Unfortunately, it really doesn't look like that'd ever happen.

I thought up a whole concept based on a helicopter training game that they used to have at my local aviation museum where you had to balance a ball bearing in the center of a plate that was controlled by a joystick...

I like this, and it's something similar to what some people suggested way back when. Skillbased piloting checks instead of RNG checks. Faster movement (relatively, a fast light mech would have a higher MPH threshold for going off Balance than a slow heavy mech), for example, makes it harder to "keep the ball balanced" during a turn or difficult maneuver than slower movement etc. The best pilots would be the ones who learned when to slow Down for a maneuver and when they would be able to push the limit and still keep it on the plate. Charging/ramming/crashing with another mech would put you and the target both off Balance, meaning only good pilots would regularly risk it. The possibilities are endless.

[kesmai]

At first I thought: Not that again. Paul, the goons, etc. Story is known.
Now I think:
FU.CK YEAH
I want the whole fugging program.
Falling.
Knockbacks.
MELEE.
Death from above.
PGI! Do your fugging job! ASAP!
No excuses.
No delays.
Proof that you aren't a bunch of incompetent and greedy beancounters.
Get on your lazy a... and do this. I paid enough to demand this




Then I woke up, sweat between my eyebrows and knew I just had a bad dream

Edited by kesmai, 03 August 2016 - 08:15 AM.

[Yellonet]

ice trey, on 03 August 2016 - 03:33 AM, said:

Knockdowns would have made more sense if there was some sort of way to fight against the fall. Something to emulate the same "Piloting Skill Roll" or PSR from tabletop Battletech. Of course, it wouldn't be dice but something that required snap mech maneuvering to keep the mech balanced.

Unfortunately, it really doesn't look like that'd ever happen.

I thought up a whole concept based on a helicopter training game that they used to have at my local aviation museum where you had to balance a ball bearing in the center of a plate that was controlled by a joystick...

I actually thought of something very similar, but I imagined a ball instrument very much like an attitude indicator found in an aircraft.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I think the main issue is that the system may not be very intuitive to new players and might steepen an already somewhat steep learning curve. A new player will struggle with a fall down mechanic for a while and with the other intricacies of the game, will most likely give up and leave.

Secondly, the mechanic might offer a more realistic feel, but is it really an addition that adds fun? I don't think it would make the game more enjoyable, and most likely, would add an additional layer of frustration.

I could see possibly a fall down mechanic being added one day if critical hits were expanded to the gyro or cockpit so that it wasn't an issue most of the time. Still, I don't think punishing an already crippled player adds to the fun factor either.

Ultimately I think it is a mechanic best left out of the game.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 03 August 2016 - 04:51 AM.

[Kirkland Langue]

Alistair Winter, on 03 August 2016 - 03:10 AM, said:

The majority of MWO players don't actually want a combat sim. They want an arcade game without inconvenience. The idea that their mech might fall down or that trees will obscure vision is obscene to them.

Well, truth be told, our lasers should chop through the trees wish no difficulty.

But on the topic of falling down - I 100% agree that mechs should fall down.
As for nerfing light mechs "even more" - yes. I want them nerfed to the point where they cannot supercede physics and kill assaults with abandon. Every time a light mech sits between my legs with literally nothing I can do about it except die - I cuss at PGI and wish that they'd lose their Mechwarrior license.

[Coolant]

There used to be knockdowns. Light pilots were dead when that happened. Would curb the OPness of lights for sure.

[Bilbo]

Coolant, on 03 August 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

There used to be knockdowns. Light pilots were dead when that happened. Would curb the OPness of lights for sure.

To be fair, anything that got knocked down within view of more than one enemy was dead as long as they waited long enough for the fallen mech to warp to the right position before firing.

[ChapeL]

Falling down from weapons fire was a big part of MW3 and MW4. It added to the realism ( if one can call it such ) of giant precariously balanced bipedal warmachines. I'm all for it. ... To say nothing of weapons recoil and kinetic impact.

Edit: Apparently we can't have these things because E-Sports !

Edited by ChapeL, 03 August 2016 - 08:15 AM.

[Dfeeds]

Gamuray, on 03 August 2016 - 01:15 AM, said:

I'm impressed by the lack of reading comprehension. So many of you come and immediately go "but dragon bowling and light mechs!" If you read carefully, he specifically stated not knockdowns, just penalties for poor/panic piloting. And he also said that mechs could have differing penaltis according to weight, so light mechs could be more stable, etc.

It's not that terrible of an idea, and since you have to turn an override on in order to reach the penalties, new players can just not override it and they won't fall over. Not that hard.

I like this, I was actually suggesting that the risk of falling over would always be present, but having it only be a risk when override is on would help with the learning curve of the game. It also would make more sense, when it comes to elited skills. My understanding is that eliting a mech is supposed to simulate a pilot's better understanding of the mech and an ability to pilot it better. It would be cool to have that be something a player can actually accomplish on their own. Flip on override, get elited maneuvering bonus but require much more finesse, and get a bigger sense of accomplishment for it.

jss78, on 03 August 2016 - 02:27 AM, said:

Interesting idea. I'm all for adding more depth to the core gameplay, though I gather that we shouldn't expect such changes from PGI. I think their position is that MWO is already straddling the line of how much complexity a game can have while attracting a viable player base.

The problem I see is that the feedback for keeping a 'mech upright is supposed to come through the neural helmel and your own sense of balance. We don't get this feedback as we're sitting behind our monitors, yet we'd be given the task of keeping the 'mech upright. This is the same thing hardcore racing simulations have though, and they give the players advanced physical models too while the players have deprived sensory feedback.

That's true, it is a problem. A solution would be to find a middle ground in the "realistic" factor of it by providing the player some visual feedback and time to correct the balance once they see the mech start to tilt. The picture posted a few posts up would be a great way to add some feedback if the keyboard wasn't considered the primary function of control. Without any analogue inputs the balancing would have to be done with a much more forgiving mechanic. It would have to rely mostly on visual cues, like a visible amount of tilt before the mech actually fell over. Then there could be a window added to that "tilt" that would allow for a counter steer to prevent the fall from actually happening; similar to counter steering when the back end of a car kicks out. However, instead of drifting, hitting the opposing movement key would simply cause the mech to upright itself and stop the turn; thus preventing the fall.

[Chuck Jager]

We have had our accel nerfed to the point that you are asking for turtles to suffer whiplash