218 replies to this topic

[qS Sachiel]

Could care less about semantics.

Arena shooters are less represented in modern games, because modern games are all about 'modern warfare'.
Some of the most notable games in FPS history, also the games which more or less established the genre, and continued to produce multiple sequels if not construct a franchise about their inception, in the multiplayer world, were those listed.

If you want to cherry pick, go ahead.
If you want to liken MWO to COD, ARMA, Rainbow Six: Siege, be my guest.

[The Cyberserker]

It's needed for Armored Core for several reasons. Mainly that the first few games didn't have joystick support. Also because the speed is way higher and the ranges generally closer compared to MWO. Armored Core has it because it wouldn't really work without it. I like aiming in MWO.

[Mystere]

adamts01, on 02 November 2017 - 08:58 PM, said:

I just hate the convergence concept, as we're back to some mechs being crippled by it while some like the Hunback don't care. Cone of fire is the way to go, plus there are millions of games to just copy and paste it from.

Good luck with cone of fire. It's allegedly taking away from people the only skill that matters and thus is an idea that should be nuked from orbit into extinction.

Edited by Mystere, 03 November 2017 - 02:38 AM.

[The Cyberserker]

Kaeb Odellas, on 03 November 2017 - 12:52 AM, said:

I'm gonna say no to full on auto-aim, but I would like to see a target-based convergence system. That is, weapons converge based on the distance to your target, not your whatever is under your crosshairs. No target? No convergence!



To be fair, he did say recent history. Half Life and TF2 are ancient history as far as video games are concerned (TF2 and Episode 2 are just over 10 years old), and the new UT is still in pre-alpha. Quake Champions and Doom 2016 I'll give you. Just about every other major shooter released in the past few years have had some kind of recoil or movement accuracy penalty though.

That's because as gaming has gone mainstream they had to dumb everything down for the plebs. Arena shooters have a ridiculously high physical skill ceiling. Modern shooters are 80% positioning and map knowledge.

Mystere, on 03 November 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

Good luck with cone of fire. It's allegedly taking away from people the only skill that matters and thiu is an idea that should be nuked from orbit into extinction.

It's a shooter. Yeah, dude, shooting is the main skill of shooters. You know there's a turn-based strategy Mechwarrior game too, right? If you want RNG aim why not play that?

Edited by The Cyberserker, 03 November 2017 - 02:34 AM.

[Mystere]

qS Sachiel, on 03 November 2017 - 02:00 AM, said:

Could care less about semantics.

Arena shooters are less represented in modern games, because modern games are all about 'modern warfare'.
Some of the most notable games in FPS history, also the games which more or less established the genre, and continued to produce multiple sequels if not construct a franchise about their inception, in the multiplayer world, were those listed.

If you want to cherry pick, go ahead.
If you want to liken MWO to COD, ARMA, Rainbow Six: Siege, be my guest.

People who want a pure arena-only game should really support Hawken or Heavy Gear Assault to help those games thrive.

The Cyberserker, on 03 November 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

It's a shooter. Yeah, dude, shooting is the main skill of shooters. You know there's a turn-based strategy Mechwarrior game too, right? If you want RNG aim why not play that?

See above.

Edited by Mystere, 03 November 2017 - 02:39 AM.

[adamts01]

qS Sachiel, on 03 November 2017 - 12:47 AM, said:

Do you people even enjoy playing MWO? If so then why do you seek to change it so drastically? To deviate from the established gameplay medium?

If it were successful then I'd sadly acknowledge that it's just not the game for me, despite how much I love the franchise. But it's not that successful of a game. It's floated along this far solely based on fans of the franchise, not on its quality. And at this point the sky isn't falling, the game is essentially dead, as the only way to play this MMO with friends is to try to sync drop with them in quick play, or wait for some tournament on a private server. And PGI is adding another bucket with Solaris when you already can't get a match in CW or Group Que...... People have been suggesting drastic changes for years because they see that it's the only way to save this game, as it isn't as simple as balancing Clan/IS, or lasers/ballistics. It's the crap modes, pay to win mechs, oblivious owner, and dumbed down nature that did this game in. So yes, drastic changes have been in order for a very long time, and we're now paying the cost of relying on nothing more than mech packs.

[qS Sachiel]

Mystere, on 03 November 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

People who want a pure arena-only game should really support Hawken or Heavy Gear Assault to help those games thrive.



See above.

Firstly, i enjoy the MW universe. MWO goes a long way to representing that, as per previous titles (not including TT as i didn't play, but i played 2-current, including MCG)
Second, Hawken is unenjoyable for me.
HGA looks terrible, and given the videos i've seen of it you fire at a gear for days. HG1 and especially HG2 were not like this at all.

So not only do you recommend i go play another game when i'm happy with the CURRENT game, and that the current game represents the MO of previous titles, but you don't recommend people who are unhappy with the CURRENT game to go play another game due to their being unhappy with the way this game functions?

Also you recommend games which are subjectively poor, or objectively having deviated from their core/origins?

To summarise: I enjoy the current game and feel it adequatly represents the franchise, despite some claims that the early inceptions deviated from the tabletop origin.

Second, given that i'm currently enjoying the franchise which adequately represents its origins, I propose that it's those that are unhappy with the game that find a substitute rather than try to change the current game into something of a substitute.

im supressing the laughter with indignation.

Edited by qS Sachiel, 03 November 2017 - 02:53 AM.

[Mystere]

qS Sachiel, on 03 November 2017 - 02:50 AM, said:

Firstly, i enjoy the MW universe. MWO goes a long way to representing that, as per previous titles (not including TT as i didn't play, but i played 2-current, including MCG)
Second, Hawken is unenjoyable for me.
HGA looks terrible, and given the videos i've seen of it you fire at a gear for days. HG1 and especially HG2 were not like this at all.

So not only do you recommend i go play another game when i'm happy with the CURRENT game, and that the current game represents the MO of previous titles, but you don't recommend people who are unhappy with the CURRENT game to go play another game due to their being unhappy with the way this game functions?

Also you recommend games which are subjectively poor, or objectively having deviated from their core/origins?

To summarise: I enjoy the current game and feel it adequatly represents the franchise, despite some claims that the early inceptions deviated from the tabletop origin.

Second, given that i'm currently enjoying the franchise which adequately represents its origins, I propose that it's those that are unhappy with the game that find a substitute rather than try to change the current game into something of a substitute.

im supressing the laughter with indignation.

THe biggest problem MWO is that it was not supposed to be just an arena-only game. It was supposed to be much deeper and immersive and not this staler than stale bread thing. The player hemorrhage can be directly attributed to that.

Hawken and Heavy Gear, on the other hand, were designed primarily as arena-only games.

Besides, where did I say you should leave MWO? I specifically said "support" the other games. If I can do it (i.e. Heavy Gear), you most certainly can do the same.

Heck, I also have some chips put in for Star Citizen.

Edited by Mystere, 03 November 2017 - 03:04 AM.

[qS Sachiel]

Mystere, on 03 November 2017 - 03:01 AM, said:

The current problem with MWO is that it was not supposed to be just an arena-only game. It was supposed to be much deeper and immersive. Hawken and Heavy Gear, on the other hand, were designed primarily as arena-only games.

Besides, where did I say you should leave MWO? I specifically said "support" the other games. If I can do it (i.e. Heavy Gear), you most certainly can do the same.

I expressed that i've examined what they have to offer, and find it a bad choice of my money and time. Also, i can only play so many games at once. A different game is then a substitute.

To your second point: I'll get behind adding real features and content to the MWO game. Sure, more maps, better game immersion and faction / role warfare. Go for gold.
What this thread suggests is to hamstring what paltry game we have available at the current time.

Again, whatever MWO was advertised or marketed to be, it has fallen back to this. That the current iteration matches similarly to multiplayer aspects of previous titles is not a negative, but taken in the skeptical view of 'minimially viable product' may put people off. Whether it was or wasn't intended as an arena style FPS, it's fallen back on that in a very similar vein of previous titles. *and i'll link this back to my second paragraph in that while i'm not outraged by the lack of delivery, i would openly welcome further development on what their original view of product was to be*.

adamts01, on 03 November 2017 - 02:46 AM, said:

the only way to play this MMO with friends is to try to sync drop with them in quick play, or wait for some tournament on a private server. And PGI is adding another bucket with Solaris when you already can't get a match in CW or Group Que...... crap modes, pay to win mechs, oblivious owner, and dumbed down nature that did this game in

How do you foresee that by further dumbing down the system, and in the specific avenue of auto-aim only weapons, that the points you listed will be resolved?

Edited by qS Sachiel, 03 November 2017 - 03:22 AM.

[Sjorpha]

The6thMessenger, on 31 October 2017 - 11:23 PM, said:

Think of it as turning every other weapons in the game like LRMs.

The6thMessenger, on 31 October 2017 - 11:23 PM, said:

turning every other weapons in the game like LRMs.

The6thMessenger, on 31 October 2017 - 11:23 PM, said:

like LRMs.

Never suggest this again, you monster!

[Mystere]

qS Sachiel, on 03 November 2017 - 03:04 AM, said:

Again, whatever MWO was advertised or marketed to be, it has fallen back to this.

Hence the massive hemorrhaging of players.

[qS Sachiel]

Again, if you'd care to explain how this specific topic of autotarget weapons could address the plethora of MWO's issues, otherwise lets just address the issue without allowing our pent up angst to flow out into every topic on the forums.

[FupDup]

Kaeb Odellas, on 03 November 2017 - 12:52 AM, said:

To be fair, he did say recent history. Half Life and TF2 are ancient history as far as video games are concerned (TF2 and Episode 2 are just over 10 years old), and the new UT is still in pre-alpha. Quake Champions and Doom 2016 I'll give you. Just about every other major shooter released in the past few years have had some kind of recoil or movement accuracy penalty though.

You can add Overwatch to the list. I think Paladins too? IDK because I haven't played it, but a few clips seem to indicate that it doesn't penalize you for not standing still.

Do the Star Wars Battlefront games count?

There's also the entire Halo franchise.

Edited by FupDup, 03 November 2017 - 06:08 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

qS Sachiel, on 03 November 2017 - 02:00 AM, said:

Could care less about semantics.

Arena shooters are less represented in modern games, because modern games are all about 'modern warfare'.
Some of the most notable games in FPS history, also the games which more or less established the genre, and continued to produce multiple sequels if not construct a franchise about their inception, in the multiplayer world, were those listed.

If you want to cherry pick, go ahead.
If you want to liken MWO to COD, ARMA, Rainbow Six: Siege, be my guest.

I'm not here to downplay the importance of Unreal, Quake, Doom, Half Life, and all the classics that more or less established the FPS genre, but they're not the only important shooter franchises. GoldenEye proved shooters could work on consoles and introduced location-based damage to FPS games (I don't count the Mechwarrior games as FPS). The Halo series popularized the concept of limited loadouts (no more infinite gun bags), as well as one-button melee and grenade throw functions. Halo 2 in particular introduced the concept of multiplayer matchmaking. CoD4 blew the door wide open on metagame progression mechanics.

You look at something like the recent Doom reboot and see the triumph of classic shooter design. It's got speed. It's got secrets. It's got great level design. But even then, new Doom included more modern game conventions like progression mechanics, weapon upgrades, collectibles, mantling, audio and text logs, cutscenes and so forth.


And what exactly are you referring to when you say "modern"? Are you talking about a "realistic" modern military setting, like CoD4? Or are you talking about "realistic" FPS conventions that were popularized by games like CoD4? Stuff like ADS, recoil, accuracy penalties from movement, headshots for every weapon, low TTK, etc.?

If we're talking about setting, you're way off the mark. Look at some popular shooter franchises that released in the last few years:

-Overwatch: Not modern.
-Destiny: Not modern.
-Doom: One of the best games of last year. Not even remotely modern.
-Battlefront: is Star Wars.
-Halo: Not modern
-Titanfall: Nope
-Battlefield I: WWI
-Call of Duty: The last 4 Call of Duty releases has been either WWII or future tech with cyborgs/spaceships. Not exactly modern.
-Borderlands: Not even close.
-Wolfenstein: Alternate reality WWII and 60s
-Crysis: Futuristic exo-suit stuff.
-Deus Ex: Futuristic cyborg stuff.
-Metro: Post apocalyptic mutant-hunting

For examples of series in modern settings, we've got
-Tom Clancy shooters (Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, The Division)
-Far Cry (with the exception of Blood Dragon and Primal)
-PUBG: Modern setting, but that's not exactly its draw.
-CS:GO: Modern setting, but with some decidedly un-modern game mechanics.
-ARMA: Not exactly a huge mainstream success, but modern
-Battlefield 3, 4, and Hardline

[Kaeb Odellas]

FupDup, on 03 November 2017 - 06:08 PM, said:

You can add Overwatch to the list. I think Paladins too? IDK because I haven't played it, but a few clips seem to indicate that it doesn't penalize you for not standing still. Do the Star Wars Battlefront games count? There's also the entire Halo franchise.

They don't have movement penalties, but they definitely have recoil mechanics, or just RNG weapon inaccuracy independent of movement.

I remember people raising a big stink over Halo 2's SMG recoil. People complained that it shouldn't have it because Master Chief can flip Warthogs. Fun times.

[Brain Cancer]

Mystere, on 03 November 2017 - 02:29 AM, said:

Good luck with cone of fire. It's allegedly taking away from people the only skill that matters and thus is an idea that should be nuked from orbit into extinction.

The sad thing is a game designed around taking hits to (at least) seven different locations is most frequently reduced to three, two, or even one being hit before said unit is wrecked. And that's because we have pixel-perfect aim without so much as a hint of drift.

Spread is the most powerful TTK tool in the book. Anyone who thinks otherwise can look at LRMs, or if they can't stomach a guided spread weapon, MRMs and the amount of damage it takes to kill someone with either vs. a laservomit to the torso or a point-blank SRM spread to the leg. It really would only take a little spread to make a significant difference, as again anyone using LRM/ATMs post-nerf can tell you.

[InvictusLee]

Jun Watarase, on 01 November 2017 - 12:05 AM, said:

We tried to tell PGI in closed beta that pinpoint accuracy was a bad idea, but were shouted down by people who wanted to do 360 degree no scope headshots in mid air. Nearly every balance problem in the game stems from the pinpoint accuracy that people wanted.

Also PGI wont put in the effort to turn this game into a tactical shooter.

Would you like to buy a mechpack?

Controller support plz.

[Appogee]

No.

In case I was unclear:

No.

[YueFei]

I would say that the solution to focused-damage is two-fold:
1.) Ensuring that mechs have the hitboxes + agility to spread the damage when well-piloted. The idea here is that being able to spread damage should be in the hands of the pilot being shot at, not in the hands of the shooter.
2.) Breaking up weapons salvos to limit how much focused damage can be dealt with a single salvo.

Item#1 can be achieved, and generally already is do-able for many mechs. This was something that surprised me a bit, but when I ran the numbers, I realized that it holds true for quite a few mechs, especially the faster heavies. Take the Dragon, for example. It decelerates/accelerates at 5 to 6 g's. This is enough to produce a lateral displacement of 1.58 to 1.85 meters within 250 milliseconds, a large enough distance that a shot perfectly aimed at the center of one hitbox will instead strike an adjacent hitbox. Beam duration and weapon projectile velocity can also play a role in the aspect of spreading the damage from incoming fire.

However, for some of the slower mechs, or mechs with unfavorable hitboxes and/or hardpoint locations, this isn't the case.

The way to achieve item#1 is to ensure that mechs have the agility to maneuver rapidly enough that human reflexes are incapable of reacting in time to the movements to still hit the desired location. In other words, even with the quickest and best marksmen in the game, the mechs can deftly accelerate/turn/twist to generate sufficient lateral displacement that a shot will strike an adjacent hitbox rather than the intended hitbox.

To give a concrete example of where this is currently not properly set, take the Atlas. It has torso hitboxes that are each about ~2.4 meters wide, so that from the center of each hitbox to the edge of the adjacent one is a distance of 1.2 meters. With its current level of agility (accel/decel, turn rate), assuming maxed skill tree values for these attributes, the Atlas utilizing decel+leg-turning simultaneously can only generate a lateral displacement of 0.7 meters within 250 milliseconds. This falls short, even if you assume the Atlas pilot starts twisting immediately, which only narrows the profile of each torso hitbox to 2.27 meters (1.135 meters from center to edge).

Atlas base agility should be increased to at least an accel/decel of 22.49 meters/sec^2 with a turn rate of 44 degrees/sec. Then, with maxed skill tree for these agility attributes, the Atlas would have an accel/decel of 28 meters/sec^2 and a turn rate of 55 degrees/sec. This would enable it to create the necessary lateral displacement of 1.135 meters within 250 milliseconds. At that point, the Atlas begins to be nimble enough to outpace human reflexes, and spread the damage.

Alternatively, re-do the Atlas model to slim down the hitboxes... and/or give additional armor/structure quirks. But I doubt they'll re-do the Atlas model, and additional armor/structure quirks are nice but don't raise the "skill ceiling" of the Atlas, which I find more interesting.

Item#2 has several possible solutions. Ghost Heat is one such tool to tackle this, but it is inelegant and un-intuitive. It's probably not going away any time soon, so the most practical course going forward is to use it in newer ways to limit the devastation of massed weapon salvos.

Edited by YueFei, 03 November 2017 - 11:39 PM.

[Impyrium]

Oh my lord.