86 replies to this topic

[Riddlez]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Ammo costs, on the other hand, reward not using your weapons. I don't see why that's a good thing.

Have you considered: "Ammo costs, on the other hand, reward not using your weapons [at the wrong time or on the wrong target.]"

[peer]

You already have a factor that rewards taking good shots: ammunition. Waste ammo on stupid shots and you'll run out before the match is over. Here are two example situations:

* Joe Mechwarrior can see an enemy mech, but it's 400m away, half hidden behind some trees, and moving. Joe decides not to fire his AC/10 since he's only carrying 20 rounds and he's unlikely to hit. He fires his lasers instead.

* Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows he hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and fears he won't have enough to both repair and restock ammo. He fires his lasers instead.

The top one is an example of good decision making, and part of what separates good players from bad ones. The bottom one, on the other hand, is not something a developer should aim for in their game.

[Riddlez]

* Joe Mechwarrior can see an enemy mech, but it's 400m away, half hidden behind some trees, and moving. Joe decides not to fire his AC/10 since he's only carrying 20 rounds and he's unlikely to hit. He fires his lasers instead. - In this scenario that is sensible, I don't see why that's a problem. AC/10 has a higher DPS doesn't it? With little heat to impede unloading everything on them when you have a clearer shot what's wrong with waiting?

* Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows he hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and fears he won't have enough to both repair and restock ammo. He fires his lasers instead. -I don't think that the ammo costs would be so detrimental to your bank account that that that would be the case for an AC/10. Maybe if you go around trying to use the AC/20 or Guass rifle for only knocking off arms with no weapons on them, it might be a problem -but the purpose of the latter two weapons is for them to be used accurately and not in excess while reloading your entire mech at a repair bay (as I read i think earlier in this thread), then you might be doing more than wasting money on ammo and wasting time traversing back and forth from your base.

[peer]

Riddlez, on 22 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

In this scenario that is sensible, I don't see why that's a problem.

That was my point. The first one's sensible, the second is bad design (in my opinion). Ballistics already have the drawbacks of needing to spend tonnage on ammo, the risk of ammo explosions, and limited ammunition within the engagement, in addition to non-ammo-related drawbacks like travel time on your shots. These ensure that ballistics are (ideally) balanced with energy weapons (which have their own advantages and drawbacks). I don't see why you have to add "more expensive and fiddly to maintain than lasers" in there as well.

When someone is about to fire their Gauss Rifle at an enemy, he should be thinking "can I realistically hit him" and "if I miss, will I still have enough ammo for the rest of the round", rather than "can I afford to buy more ammo for this thing" or "maybe I should fire lasers instead to save money".

[Riddlez]

I see your point. If that's the case then,what about in game reloading? Because it would be a severe disadvantage for the slower mechs if reloading were free. Load up a light mech, zip around the battle field unloading your AC20 and then rushing back to get it reloaded.

What about if you do fire your weapon and you get a kill or assist wouldn't that make that make the shot profitable? I mean, I don't know this about the game yet, but do you get money/xp or w/e for hitting/damaging opponents?

[peer]

I'm working under the assumption you can't reload during matches, though obviously I don't know for sure. If you can, that does indeed invalidate a lot of things I've been saying.

I also don't know whether you directly get money from kills, or just from winning. We've seen from screenshots you do get XP both from killing opponents and destroying components on their mechs, though.

[Riddlez]

I wouldn't say it invalidates your points, being concerned with balancing the game and having an account where you end up getting screwed over as a result of a losing streak, repair costs and ammo replacement would not be a fun situation to fall into.

I may have misread something on this post: http://mwomercs.com/...st-a-game-mode/ where the it was a hypothetical game play mode. However, I honestly don't know what it is like in game as all I could read so far is: "MWO is starting with 2 game modes: Team Deathmatch and Dropship." Perhaps it is something we can look into?

[Bishop Steiner]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

First, I already stated why I believe paying for repairs is good while paying to restock ammo is not. Here it is again: repair costs reward smart play, which is good. Ammo costs, on the other hand, reward not using your weapons. I don't see why that's a good thing.

Second, you don't want to balance a weapon around factors (ie, ammo cost) that have no impact in the actual battle. I already explained this, too. Weapons, and mechs, should be balanced around what they actually do ingame, not around how much they cost to buy or resupply.

Third, if you want realism, do you also support the idea that once your mech is destroyed in a match, it's gone? That's more realistic, after all; if you lose your mech, you'll have to buy a brand new one. If you can't afford it, tough, get a new account. Realism, hell yeah.

And again, you miss the point.

Ammo cost does not reward "Not using your weapon". It rewards the Mechwarrior who has the foresight to take it into consideration that maybe on this long mission with dicey logistics, it just might make more sense to mount a PPC and some heatsinks, vs an AC/20. Whereas the same warrior may consider the cost of ammo worth it if the mission is on a desert planet, and a PPC would over work his heat sinks.

There are offsetting benefits and drawbacks to all weapons. Otherwise all you would need to do is mount as many gauss rifles on an atlas as you can (3 is the realistic max), put the largest magazines possible, and go for it. And shortly pretty much eveyone will be riding the exact same mech and loadout.

Ammo cost rewards smart strategy and logistics, which are just as important in war, as repairs and guns. Maybe you never heard that an army marches on it's stomach? That is referring to consumables, like ammo, food, medical supplies, all of which place real limitations on what any army can do.

In fact, it is the lack of available ammo and parts, do to the length of their supply lines, that helped slow the Clan Juggernaut, with only units like the Wolf Clan overcoming it by smart management of available consumables, and by mounting more energy weapons than the other clans, specifically because they knew availability of ammo would become questionable, until they could start producing their own supplies on captured Inner Sphere worlds.

If you want unlimited free ammo, please, go play Contra or something and leave Mechwarrior for those who aren't afraid of being forced to think their choices through.

The fact you are not able to understand is that what you do BEFORE you drop for a mission DOES directly impact what you can do DURING a mission. You are myopically focused on what happens only after the drop, and don't seem to get, or are too afraid to have to learn, that things like weapons choices, repair and ammo costs DO factor into what happens when said bullets start flying.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 July 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[peer]

Great but we're not playing the tabletop game, nor are we in a real war. In video games, if you have a conflict between realism and gameplay, gameplay should always win. If you're so hot for realism, why not have permanent mech loss when it's destroyed, like I suggested? That's how it works in the tabletop game as well, as far as I am aware. Would you be in favour of this? If not, why?

[Bishop Steiner]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 July 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

And again, you miss the point.

Ammo cost does not reward "Not using your weapon". It rewards the Mechwarrior who has the foresight to take it into consideration that maybe on this long mission with dicey logistics, it just might make more sense to mount a PPC and some heatsinks, vs an AC/20. Whereas the same warrior may consider the cost of ammo worth it if the mission is on a desert planet, and a PPC would over work his heat sinks.

There are offsetting benefits and drawbacks to all weapons. Otherwise all you would need to do is mount as many gauss rifles on an atlas as you can (3 is the realistic max), put the largest magazines possible, and go for it. And shortly pretty much eveyone will be riding the exact same mech and loadout.

Ammo cost rewards smart strategy and logistics, which are just as important in war, as repairs and guns. Maybe you never heard that an army marches on it's stomach? That is referring to consumables, like ammo, food, medical supplies, all of which place real limitations on what any army can do.

In fact, it is the lack of available ammo and parts, do to the length of their supply lines, that helped slow the Clan Juggernaut, with only units like the Wolf Clan overcoming it by smart management of available consumables, and by mounting more energy weapons than the other clans, specifically because they knew availability of ammo would become questionable, until they could start producing their own supplies on captured Inner Sphere worlds.

If you want unlimited free ammo, please, go play Contra or something and leave Mechwarrior for those who aren't afraid of being forced to think their choices through.

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

You already have a factor that rewards taking good shots: ammunition. Waste ammo on stupid shots and you'll run out before the match is over. Here are two example situations:

* Joe Mechwarrior can see an enemy mech, but it's 400m away, half hidden behind some trees, and moving. Joe decides not to fire his AC/10 since he's only carrying 20 rounds and he's unlikely to hit. He fires his lasers instead.

* Joe Mechwarrior has an enemy mech coming right at him. It's within range of his AC/10, but Joe knows he hasn't got much money left after purchasing his new mech and fears he won't have enough to both repair and restock ammo. He fires his lasers instead.

The top one is an example of good decision making, and part of what separates good players from bad ones. The bottom one, on the other hand, is not something a developer should aim for in their game.

and your post points to part of the issue: "take bad shots and run out of ammo before the MATCH is over".

Thing is, this is not about matches. This is not Unreal tournament, nor the Games at Solaris 7. You are going to involved in a WAR, with campaigns, and battles, ALL linked together, without "breathers" and consideration for what is convenient to you. As your unit is forced to retreat from the Smoke Jaguars or falcons as they overrun the world you were garrisoning, you retreat to another planet... and guess what they follow.. and you don't GET to restock and repair.

Stop looking at this as a series of unrelated matches, and maybe just maybe you will figure out what we are talking about. As it is now, I am taking names, cuz I know which people aren't going to know how to manage their supplies and loadouts, which means by the 3rd or 4th match, I know which folks to hunt down for easy salvage.

Deathmatch may be one of the orginal options, as a way to get things rolling, but soon on the video game it will be drawn out campaigns.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 22 July 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[peer]

Cool but are you in favour of permanent mech destruction?

[Bishop Steiner]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Great but we're not playing the tabletop game, nor are we in a real war. In video games, if you have a conflict between realism and gameplay, gameplay should always win. If you're so hot for realism, why not have permanent mech loss when it's destroyed, like I suggested? That's how it works in the tabletop game as well, as far as I am aware. Would you be in favour of this? If not, why?

Heck yeah I am in favor of it. If you just respawn all nice and shiny, you don't learn the value of retreat. I would be all for even having account/ characters DIE, and you have to start from scratch. Mind you I get people pay in for their Founders packs, and I am not saying close their accounts, but basically mark one character dead, or Mech destroyed, or whatever, and then said account creates new character.

Shoot, I would find it pretty cool, TBH, if one loses their mech, and their lancemates can't salvage it, to see a person have to try to get sponsorship from a unit willing to front him the money for a new ride. Or If they would have "Standing Army" units, where Mechwarriors are less concerned about having to pay for ammo and repairs, or replacement mechs, but are severely limited as to mech options, and even missions, as in the real military. Again, offsetting factors. Free ride, but limited access, vs Mercs having unlimited options, but having to pay as they go. And truth to tell, the Clans SHOULD be run on the standing military model as their mechwarriors DON'T pay to have stuff fixed, everythihng is supplied by the Clan.

[peer]

Sounds like you're the one who should be playing a different game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Actually, no.

The difference?

I'm not running around making posts about how broken the game is and you should change it for me!

I would be totally cool with the changes mentioned, but am also totally cool to let PGI do their job. I just get a kick out of all the whining, as I can guarantee I know exactly who are going to making Clan accounts just as soon as they are available. Mostly because it's pretty obvious who around here is put off by actually having to think through ALL their game related decisions.

Deciding between an Awesome and an Atlas becomes more than who has the bigger gun, but am I willing to devote so much funds to keep the Atlas' 3 ballistic weapons loaded, or would I be better served by the Awesome's all energy arsenal. When you have to plan your choices, you tend to value them more. All the arguments I hear from your side is basically " I should only have to think and plan ahead AFTER I am on planet and fighting.".


I can understand why such challenges might intimidate some.

[Xathanael]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Sounds like you're the one who should be playing a different game.

Seriously you are missing the point. This is Mechwarrior not Mechassault. It is not for casual gamers. It is not for CoD or BF3 players. This is more inline with WoT. Ammo is important because of what happens in the Mechlab. You equip tons of ammo in various slots that dictate how many shots you have. If you choose energy weapons you don't need ammo, but you might need more heat dissipation. If you choose projectile weapons you need to equip ammo, but you generate less heat. Ammo costs money because it costs money. Repairs cost money because they cost money. You don't permanently lose mechs because people would Rage quit. Eve-Online let's you permanently lose ships but hen again there are non-combat ways of earning income. The ingame economy rewards you for not WASTING ammo, for not "Leroy Jenkins"ing every match, for not equipping only BIG guns. I'm probably off topic but just what I feel.

[light487]

peer, on 22 July 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

It makes sense to pay for repairs, since that rewards cautious, smart play. Rewarding you for not using your weapons, on the other hand, seems counter-intuitive to me. I

Part of the tactical gameplay is that you don't just fire your weapons constantly.. you need to make every shot count... you have a limit on what you can fire and you should be rewarded for making every shot count and not using up ammo that was not necessary to be fired.. that's all part of the game.. it's always been part of BT.. to not have this would be counter-intuitive to the game universe. In the same way that you understand paying for repairs rewards cautious, smart play.. so to does this happen when you need to pay for ammo.. when ammo costs a lot, for those uber powerful weapons, you tend to be a little more mindful over which/what and when you fire them.

[KBob]

you guys lost me somewhere ... where the heck "we" are buying ammo ? is this some kind of issue in closed beta that we all shall be aware about, or just an overall unhappiness about difficulties of live of mechwarrior ? As far as I remember by MW4 there is a lot of staff one has to buy ( including payment for dropping )

[Bishop Steiner]

eh. They aren't gonna get the point. They just want the game dumbed down enough so to remove the actual need for strategy, and make this into a nice slow lumbering Armored Core, FPS in mechs type game. If it devolves into that, I reckon I will be out of here quick. Be a shame too, for all the setting and mech design, even the rich potential of the era chosen to go to waste.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 July 2012 - 07:09 AM.

[light487]

I think the general unhappiness of living the life (the simulated life) of a mechwarrior.. hehe

Ammo is a component.. just like the rest of the components.. even MW:LL makes you buy ammo before and during matches.. Not sure where the idea of NOT paying for ammo comes from really.. just the inconvenience of doing it I guess,

[Bishop Steiner]

it's the Unreal tournament mentality. And if I remember right, the basic MW4 multiplayer didn't require you to purchase anything, because it was just another blind, respawn deathmatch game.