Jump to content

Mwo Why Is It Not Great?


98 replies to this topic

#41 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 13 February 2019 - 11:39 AM

View PostTripleEhBeef, on 13 February 2019 - 11:33 AM, said:

Outside of chopping up all of the mechs into War Thunder/WOT style tiers and progression trees so the MM is throwing relatively comparable mechs into the same match, balance is going to be difficult. And even that would go to hell in a handbasket with the mechlab and especially omnipod hardpoint changes.


My brother coined a term, and I agree with it in spirit, "Mechlab is OP". If Mechlab wasn't in the game and everything was left as stock values only, we'd be able to have that possible progression. BUT, mechlab also adds a large element of the game, even if it leads to troublesome meta and people constantly trying to figure out the next "break the game*" combo.

And yes, even with stock mechs, you'd still have mechs that would fall into "useless/OP take please" categories. But it'd be a lot easier to balance most likely.

*The term is being loosely used. Not saying people literally want to "break the game", but they do want to min/max.

#42 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,882 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 13 February 2019 - 11:42 AM

View PostTripleEhBeef, on 13 February 2019 - 11:33 AM, said:

Ironically, there's too many mechs!


I’d say there are too many redundant/role-less/non-competitive mechs.

Hopefully that is changing though.

Chris, as illustrated in the last couple of patches, finally seems to realize that nerfing by broad application weapons or mechanics changes does not improve diversity or player options, and that letting a given variant have a specific niche build/role is okay in a game with hundreds of variants. Let’s hope for more +HSL quirks, more “flavor” quirks, and more changes that give players a reason to play their otherwise unplayed mechs.

#43 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,119 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 11:51 AM

Why?

Because the learning curve is high and Mechwarrior Academy only covers the basics. Nothing on the mechlab or equipment.

Because trial mechs are old bygone metas and aren't skilled.

Because there is no mode for casual groups to play with friends, closing off that avenue for growth through word of mouth.

Because FP was developed in a few months and sold as 'hardcore' mode in a game that was already pretty niche.

Because FP proved to be horribly repetitive and didn't get meaningful improvements.

Because they released Solaris way too late and there isn't enough population interested in an even more hardcore niche mode.

Because cryengine is not a good engine, but neither is PGI at content creation.

Because E-sports and Comp scene are only representative of a fraction of the playerbase and very fickle.

DONT BANK ON "hardcore" competitive modes to save your already nich game!

Edited by MechaBattler, 13 February 2019 - 11:51 AM.


#44 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 11:55 AM

View PostGreyhart, on 13 February 2019 - 05:11 AM, said:

3. The adherence to table top mechanics. The table top game should be taken as a starting point and then changed to better facilitate game play. Turned based games don't make good real time games. They should've identified weapons systems from the TT and then applied roles (advantages/ disadvantages) to the weapons. a small laser currently has no advantages over a large laser except that it weighs less. If you have a choice of large vs small you go large as it has longer range better damage output and takes up the same hard point.

They could've put a minimum range on large lasers that would've made them a real trade off with small. Again going with sized hard points would make a difference in this area. They could've made pulse lasers like machine guns rather than faster cycling lasers etc


I agree with most of your stuff, but here's the point of contention I have.

Tabletop, specifically Solaris VII, already made the transition of turn-based to near real time with a very well laid out set of things that if put into MWO, would have basically made a great real time experience with tradeoffs and everything for the weapons. (Worth noting if the heat scares you)

Instead, however, PGI did exactly what you describe as them not doing... they took TT as a base, and they gave **** advantages... just they broke them, too. Large lasers got extra damage and longer beam times and reduced heat. Small lasers got much shorter beam times, faster firing rates, and became such a problem that they were given EXTRA heat due to the problems that they had created due to not following through on your 1st point. They didn't follow up the tabletop base with the lore and fluff, because if they did there would be a lot of tradeoffs for pretty much every weapon system and perhaps even variations to be had, which could have allowed quite a bit of variety.

We would also have abilities such as "Block" to give a command to raise arms in front of our body to try and soak up damage in exchange for being unable to fire those weapons while blocking. Anti-laser aerosols as a consumable, which would reduce incoming damage from laser vomit. Mechs far more prone to overheating when using weapons together, manually set convergence with a simple "Set" and "Reset", as well as 5 firing arcs (lanes) when the convergence is not set (which would be advantageous for corner shooting as you could fire around the corner without exposing the cockpit, and not have issues such as "high slung arms" not being able to fire until you get the cockpit over the ridge. Lets not forget to mention control over our missile firing arc by how we angle the launchers, SRMs that track, Streaks that won't fire unless they are 90% likely to hit instead of streaks that never miss and defy the laws of physics.. and lets not forget automatic attempts to evade fire unless we have the 'intention' to go where we are going (but that last one is pretty unlikely to be doable in a game such as this).

Pulse lasers, subsequently, would've been more like laser machine guns akin to MW3, building heat over time while regular lasers were more of a short burn varying from 0.1 (but requiring several shots to accumulate the rated damage) to 2 second beam times depending on the variant. Weapons are classed by loose expectancy of tonnage, damage, range and heat over a unit of time.

On point 4: MWO has made changes. If they had replicated the tabletop, we'd have 3 PPCs fired at once shut you down instantly, where 2 fired at once then the 3rd spaced out by a couple of seconds, even a 28 SHS mech could manage 3 PPCs without shutting down and be ready to do it again 10 seconds from the first shot fired.

But here, we had thresholds as high as over 120 due to a climbing threshold system that PGI made up and most heat generation reduced and heatsinks generally faster than tabletop with the old skill tree or if taken in the new one, all in the name of PGI's weird balance ideas (where in Solaris VII the ceiling is put to 120 but all weapons generate 4 times heat and the heatsinks sink 4 times as fast, basically meaning it's still 30 threshold), twice that of even MW4 which was the highest heat threshold the MW series had ever seen in its history (MW 2 and 3 Pirate's Moon had 40, and MW3 had the very punishing 30).

(Note: Now the new high end of thresholds is around 60 with a heatsink boating but practical build).

Correct though, it lacks the penalties. But it didn't always lack them. In closed beta you had the penalties of crit-slot damage after hitting 80%, but the monitor to give us the real information never was implemented because this was taken out toward open beta. We also had actuator damage mean something as it'd throw off convergence (arm actuators) or cause you to "drift" left or right (leg actuators), but this kept being reported as a bug so it was "fixed." I remember thinking of it as a feature as it only happened when you lost armor and took damage to the limb affected and later in a discussion found out it was indeed the case..but apparently "realism is a bug."

6. Lack of a pilot. Fully agree. Minor thing, just a simple customizable pilot wouldn't change much. Tying in with point 7, if a significant part of the skill tree related to the pilot and said pilot could be permanently lost, it could allow for a perpetual system of "training pilots" rather than "decking out the tree of a mech." One thing to note though, loss of the pilot should be around head destruction, so as to not happen too often or at the roll of a die.

Edited by Koniving, 13 February 2019 - 12:15 PM.


#45 Angel of Annihilation

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 8,872 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:11 PM

Simple answer is because PGI wasn't the right company for this game. They didn't have the size or experience required to make the game great. They settled for what is essentially a minimally viable product then fumbled around trying to implement complex features that they didn't understand how to create. Additionally early on they decided that they weren't designing the game for the fans and instead designed it to attempt to appeal to the FPS/Esports crowd.

Then to make matters worse, as time went by, instead of making MWO a priority, they diverted funds to other projects. Heck to be honest us founders found out they diverted a good chuck of the revenue from the founders program to other projects rather than use it on MWO development like many if not most of the founders were expecting them to do. This eventually led to the game being left in a state of neglect for the most part, for example, hardly any new maps in the multiple years the game has been out. Eventually it became just a source of funding for MW5 with 90% of all resources devoted to that project while MWO is left on life support.

I mean I do hate to be harsh but that is pretty much how I see it with this game. Aside from a few fumbling attempts to add content such as Faction Warfare and Solaris both of which fell way short of anyone's expectations and were never really improved on, PGI has done nothing except add mech packs to the game since launch. About the only thing they did right was advance the time line and add the new weapons and tech to the game. balancing though is awful with the balance solutions provided more often nerfing the fun away instead of fixing the problem.

On the plus side. The core gameplay is still fun and I enjoy playing 15-30 matches or so a week and I still tend to like it enough to buy mech packs so there is that. Basically it is not a complete loss but it is just a damn shame that it is what it is, when it could have been a really amazing game with the proper developer behind it.

Edited by Angel of Annihilation, 13 February 2019 - 12:14 PM.


#46 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 13 February 2019 - 12:45 PM

View PostAngel of Annihilation, on 13 February 2019 - 12:11 PM, said:

Then to make matters worse, as time went by, instead of making MWO a priority, they diverted funds to other projects. Heck to be honest us founders found out they diverted a good chuck of the revenue from the founders program to other projects rather than use it on MWO development like many if not most of the founders were expecting them to do.


You do know where that money actually went to, right? IGP most likely.

Otherwise, I don't know of any other projects PGI has actually had. They tried Transverse, which was attempted to be crowd funded (but people freaked and thought PGI was taking money from MW:O projects. Only one person was shared between the two projects, otherwise Transverse was completely new staff). Then the only other project I know of that PGI has worked on was MW:5, which they were very clear they were working on for some time now.

I'm not overly certain of any other projects PGI's been involved in since.

#47 JediPanther

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,066 posts
  • LocationLost in my C1

Posted 13 February 2019 - 01:15 PM

Developer never gave a **** and went off trying to use it only to bank roll other projects.

#48 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 13 February 2019 - 03:36 PM

View PostJediPanther, on 13 February 2019 - 01:15 PM, said:

Developer never gave a **** and went off trying to use it only to bank roll other projects.


What other projects?

#49 Oberst Wilhelm Klink

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 05:15 PM

View PostGreyhart, on 13 February 2019 - 05:11 AM, said:

Mwo Why Is It Not Great?

Three letters: PGI

#50 GeminiWolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 743 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 13 February 2019 - 05:17 PM

View PostGreyhart, on 13 February 2019 - 05:11 AM, said:

I've come back to the game after about a year off. Not a great deal of difference.

The thing is the core game is good. Shooty shooty robots. So why isn't it a great game?

The problems is some core design decisions IMHO. So in no particular order:

1. Hard points. They are the right idea, but the fact that 1 laser hard point can take a Large Laser or a small laser makes the smaller laser redundant as an option. The sized hard points in MW4 would've been a better long term choice to ensure that mechs didn't become all too similar.

2. Team based shooter. Yes this is the core of MWO, but the failure to have an ability to do a drop in drop out game mode limits the fun. Every game mode must have a team and those teams have to be balanced on skill and weight. This also creates a rather stilted play environment in that every mode (even attempting to take over a planet) becomes a calculation of win/loss statistics. It also makes kill all the enemy team the only real objective.

NB this is not to say that group/team play should be removed. Just that the requirement to create a team before starting limits the game play options.

3. The adherence to table top mechanics. The table top game should be taken as a starting point and then changed to better facilitate game play. Turned based games don't make good real time games. They should've identified weapons systems from the TT and then applied roles (advantages/ disadvantages) to the weapons. a small laser currently has no advantages over a large laser except that it weighs less. If you have a choice of large vs small you go large as it has longer range better damage output and takes up the same hard point.

They could've put a minimum range on large lasers that would've made them a real trade off with small. Again going with sized hard points would make a difference in this area. They could've made pulse lasers like machine guns rather than faster cycling lasers etc

4. The Heat system. following on from 3 we have the heat system that attempts to recreate TT rules but ignoring all the penalties that apply before shut down. This system basically ends up with high alphas being the end goal. We have ghost heat that is attempting to paper over this fundamental design flaw.

5. Pin point accuracy. If a cone of fire had been in the game from the start (like almost every other shooter) no one would be requesting pin point accuracy. I know they started with convergence but found it problematic. However combining this with the heat system and the way weapons have been implemented again drives the game to large alpha strikes and the poking game play. It also defeats the purpose of the armour system.

6. The lack of a pilot. There is no pilot in the game, there is no mechwarrior there is only the mech. A customizable pilot in a customizable mech makes for more options and a long term hook and better RPG elements.

7. Lack of consequences/ management. it's all just a grind upward, there is no real risk or loss. It is just buy mech bay, buy mech, grind mech repeat. This again causes problems with the game modes, if there was a real risk involved in them (that being recognized and bug outs being available) then they wouldn't all be a do or die game mode. Management of the mechs maintenance and mech bays could've made all the difference in modes like faction play.

8. Lack of an economy. X will always cost X no matter what and there is an infinite amount of X. There is no rarity value. This does not mean player trades; look at elite dangerous they model commodity prices per system based on the trade between all the systems. If a real economy was in place then you could get actual salvage from games and sell it or use it. This then all feeds into meaningful game play.

I look forward to MW5 as I hope it will deal with some of these issues.

I enjoy the core game and grinding a mech has a level of satisfaction, but once a mech is maxed out what is the point in playing it again?


I hope that when MWO gets ported to the new MW5 engine they spend some time on sorting out the underlying problems preventing the game achieving greatness.

Nope, its the Playerbase and PGI can't do a thing about it.... all the things you list are Player play.

#51 Asym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 13 February 2019 - 05:33 PM

View PostEl Bandito, on 13 February 2019 - 07:53 AM, said:


The population is lower than ever thanks to PGI's mismanagement true, but there are still literally hundreds of people playing it round the clock. So you might wanna redefine that word "literally". https://steamdb.info.../342200/graphs/

EL, the population isn't growing.... Hows that. In small niche games, less than 10K per hour, all day is considered at risk..... At least that is the minimum population associated with mature small niche market games among those who study games. Take WoWs as an example: they hover at about 12-14 K hourly. In NA prime time, they can have 12-14 K on that server alone..... I've been playing MWO for the past few days till I can get my gaming computer back after a rebuild....and, the game hasn't gotten too much worse that I can see in game. The skill level seems polarized quite a bit though.........but, still fun till I can get back to other games....... Seen a few MS and 228. None of my teams though..... Have fun!

#52 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,457 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 13 February 2019 - 05:47 PM

Quote

Because cryengine is not a good engine, but neither is PGI at content creation.
seeing MWLL

no ...PGI has great Dreams by Start , and nothing experience with succesfull games in her 17 Years ...only Console converting Games and a Disaster named Die Hard:Nakatomi place, short before and after the Transverse disaster many leading Programmers (for Cryengine) and Animators leaves the Company, a and PGI not can hired People with same experience thats will work for the company and People thats handle the now heavy personal modified Engine version ..the MWO Whale is Stranded .


Quote


What other projects?


the Transverse Disaster ..with incorrect Marketing Strategys(EA say thats PGI have never a WC licence) Reddit Bans from PGI Staff Members and bad internal Wars by PGI. Karl Berg , the Top Programmer of the Cryengine by PGI and most People thats communicated his Work to the Community leaves and go to Amazon ...

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 14 February 2019 - 03:11 AM.


#53 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 14 February 2019 - 06:06 AM

View PostMechaBattler, on 13 February 2019 - 11:51 AM, said:

Because FP proved to be horribly repetitive and didn't get meaningful improvements.


I wouldn't mind the repetitions, if the victories actually meant something. :(

#54 GoodTry

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 07:03 AM

Quote

1. Hard points. They are the right idea, but the fact that 1 laser hard point can take a Large Laser or a small laser makes the smaller laser redundant as an option. The sized hard points in MW4 would've been a better long term choice to ensure that mechs didn't become all too similar.


I disagree. The average game player doesn't care about hardpoint size. This is a tiny pet-peeve style point that suggests that your arguments are a list of personal grievances rather than actual problems with the game.

Quote

2. Team based shooter. Yes this is the core of MWO, but the failure to have an ability to do a drop in drop out game mode limits the fun. Every game mode must have a team and those teams have to be balanced on skill and weight. This also creates a rather stilted play environment in that every mode (even attempting to take over a planet) becomes a calculation of win/loss statistics. It also makes kill all the enemy team the only real objective.


I agree that every mode essentially becomes team deathmatch. I think Domination mode was a great addition -- it centers the fight on a certain area. Skirmish obviously is fine. Conquest is also good, in my opinion. It encourages dynamic play by forcing teams to spread out a bit.

Quote

NB this is not to say that group/team play should be removed. Just that the requirement to create a team before starting limits the game play options.


Are you talking about faction play? Obviously you don't need a team for quick play.

Quote

3. The adherence to table top mechanics. The table top game should be taken as a starting point and then changed to better facilitate game play. Turned based games don't make good real time games. They should've identified weapons systems from the TT and then applied roles (advantages/ disadvantages) to the weapons. a small laser currently has no advantages over a large laser except that it weighs less. If you have a choice of large vs small you go large as it has longer range better damage output and takes up the same hard point.

They could've put a minimum range on large lasers that would've made them a real trade off with small. Again going with sized hard points would make a difference in this area. They could've made pulse lasers like machine guns rather than faster cycling lasers etc


I disagree. I never played table top, but I understand they chucked or adjusted many tabletop mechanics (such as minimum range for auto cannons). And your small vs. large laser example is ridiculous. They've set up a system where small vs. medium vs. large lasers is a careful balance of size, weight, DPS, DPH, duration, and other factors. This is one thing I think they've done really well lately.

Quote

4. The Heat system. following on from 3 we have the heat system that attempts to recreate TT rules but ignoring all the penalties that apply before shut down. This system basically ends up with high alphas being the end goal. We have ghost heat that is attempting to paper over this fundamental design flaw.


I agree that ghost heat as implemented is bad, because there is so little feedback for new players about what is happening. If you've got a mech with 8 laser hard points, for example, the obvious thing is to stuff 8 medium lasers in there. But if you don't notice the tiny little yellow triangle, you won't realize why the build sucks. It makes the game confusing. They really should have put a UI in for this -- a colored heat bar, something like the NARC warning, or something else.

Quote

5. Pin point accuracy. If a cone of fire had been in the game from the start (like almost every other shooter) no one would be requesting pin point accuracy. I know they started with convergence but found it problematic. However combining this with the heat system and the way weapons have been implemented again drives the game to large alpha strikes and the poking game play. It also defeats the purpose of the armour system.


This is not something that keeps players away from MWO, and I don't think it would look very good with MWO-style lasers. Tons of successful online shooters have used pinpoint accuracy (every Quake and Unreal game, for example).

Quote

6. The lack of a pilot. There is no pilot in the game, there is no mechwarrior there is only the mech. A customizable pilot in a customizable mech makes for more options and a long term hook and better RPG elements.


I don't even know what you are talking about here. You want an additional skill tree? Cosmetic customization of the pilot? I don't think either of those things would help anything one bit.

Quote

7. Lack of consequences/ management. it's all just a grind upward, there is no real risk or loss. It is just buy mech bay, buy mech, grind mech repeat. This again causes problems with the game modes, if there was a real risk involved in them (that being recognized and bug outs being available) then they wouldn't all be a do or die game mode. Management of the mechs maintenance and mech bays could've made all the difference in modes like faction play.


This makes no sense, IMO. Look at games like Overwatch. There is no risk there either. Risk like you are talking about isn't particularly fun, especially for more casual gamers, and MWO already appeals only to the hardcore motivated gamers.

Plus, if you care about running up your score on Jarl's list, there are huge risks. One bad game can drop you several points.

Quote

8. Lack of an economy. X will always cost X no matter what and there is an infinite amount of X. There is no rarity value. This does not mean player trades; look at elite dangerous they model commodity prices per system based on the trade between all the systems. If a real economy was in place then you could get actual salvage from games and sell it or use it. This then all feeds into meaningful game play


This is a terrible idea for MWO. MWO isn't an RPG, it's a shooter.

#55 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 14 February 2019 - 08:14 AM

View PostEl Bandito, on 14 February 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:


I wouldn't mind the repetitions, if the victories actually meant something. Posted Image


Back in the first FP mode, before the first reset, victories did have meaning. Well, more meaning than now. I think what actually killed FP was the map resets. After the first reset, a lot of interest from people I talked to and played with (including my own) seemed to have dropped. We have more tales of the first map before reset about epic struggles and funny situations (and actual diplomacy to some extent) than any map reset since.

Sure, we where fighting over dots on a map, but the meaning left once we all realize it could all be reset removing all the work we put in.

View PostGoodTry, on 14 February 2019 - 07:03 AM, said:

This is not something that keeps players away from MWO, and I don't think it would look very good with MWO-style lasers. Tons of successful online shooters have used pinpoint accuracy (every Quake and Unreal game, for example).


A cone of fire (and it wouldn't have to be big) would probably be an improvement to this game due to the nature of it's spread hit boxes. It would spread damage a little more, preventing high alpha values from ripping apart a single location (unless you took measures shrink the cone, such as standing still or making sure you always ran cool, each could be risky to do in a fire fight sometimes).

This isn't a typical "online shooter", as most shooters the target as a single health pool (shoot their toes and they could die) with weak points (shooting the head deals more damage than shooting a shoulder). This game here, shoot a mech's toes and you blow off their leg, but they continue to survive if you shoot the same toe.

MW:O also has typically slower movements (because mech combat, not human combat). This means that perfect accuracy is even more punishing, as it's even harder to typically move out of harms way. From what I recall, most vehicle type shooters normally implement a mix of cone fire mechanics, homing missiles with countermeasures, AOE damage effects, and a few pin point weapons that normally have travel times to target, meaning you need to lead. (I can reverence a few fighter games, but Star Conflict comes to mind where weapons typically shoot in a cone of fire, the more you shoot in succession, the wider your cone becomes.)

For this specific game, a Cone of Fire could aid in many things. It could be a penalty for movement, the faster you move (Standing, walking, running) the larger the cone. The hotter you are on your heat scale, the wider the cone. Even specific mechs could have advantages to their CoF, making some mechs (Riflemen for example) more accurate on average. It could even be a skill tree node, depending upon how large of a CoF is used. Even weapons in specific sections could have different CoF. Maybe the Hunchback has reduced CoF for it's torso weapons, and the Atlas reduced arm weapon CoF. (The CoF would replace the missing delayed convergence we once had in this game that happened to be removed for HSR. It was a necessary sacrifice for better game play, and to remove lag shields and lag leading.)

#56 Spheroid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 5,060 posts
  • LocationSouthern Wisconsin

Posted 14 February 2019 - 09:30 AM

@Tesunie: A cone of fire with multiple simultaneous beam weapons would be extremely visually unappealing. I recommend instead a random hit table with modifiers for facing and partial cover. All weapons would be aimed by the pilot once and even if they have the appearance of pinpoint convergence they would all get discrete location hit rolls. Also the cone has no way of knowing whether the target is a Flea or an Atlas. Unless the CoF knows what you are shooting size becomes a liability more so than it is currently.

I fear that any cone of fire mechanic that is effective enough to spread PPC at 800+m will just lead to SRM warrior online with people taking fast splat bombers and closing the distance and smashing into the opponent where the degree of angular error is a non-issue.

#57 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 14 February 2019 - 11:23 AM

View PostSpheroid, on 14 February 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

@Tesunie: A cone of fire with multiple simultaneous beam weapons would be extremely visually unappealing. I recommend instead a random hit table with modifiers for facing and partial cover. All weapons would be aimed by the pilot once and even if they have the appearance of pinpoint convergence they would all get discrete location hit rolls. Also the cone has no way of knowing whether the target is a Flea or an Atlas. Unless the CoF knows what you are shooting size becomes a liability more so than it is currently.

I fear that any cone of fire mechanic that is effective enough to spread PPC at 800+m will just lead to SRM warrior online with people taking fast splat bombers and closing the distance and smashing into the opponent where the degree of angular error is a non-issue.


That is always a possibility. No system will be perfect, but I might wish to remark that some mechs (Flea, Commando, Locust, Centurion, Spider) are actually smaller than they should be according to lore. I mean, the Commando and Spider in this game can't actually contain a pilot, no less the cockpit you actually see in the game. A Centurion (believe it or not) is as tall as an Atlas, and an Atlas is not a very tall mech. I believe an Executioner is the tallest mech in BT lore... The Shadowhawk also should be taller. (Both the Centurion and Shadowhawk would be thinner though, which actually would be better than their current squat selves (Centurion).)

CoF could have a lot of potential, depending upon how it is implemented and how large of a cone is placed. It could even be grouped by weapon location (aka: all your left torso weapons would have a much smaller cone of fire together compared/in-relation to the arm mounted weapons). Don't forget, the cone would (in my theory) grow or shrink depending upon other conditions. A mech at a full run (light mechs most likely) would have a larger cone than a mech that is walking or stationary (probably heavier mechs). A mech that is jumping would have an even wider cone (rather than "screen shake" we have now). A mech running hot would also have a wider cone compared to a mech running cold.

With above concept; You want near perfect accuracy? Stand still and be under a specific heat threshold. Running fast and hot? Your CoF will be larger (but shouldn't be so large you'd miss all your shots.)

The concept would be to have the cone get just large enough with "average penalties" (IE: Walking while at mid temps, just running at low temp, or standing still while hot) that shots are more likely to spread to alternative components, rather than "miss completely". This would help mechs with survivability, favor the light mechs (they can move faster with the same pens as slower mechs, as well as are smaller so more shots are likely to spread), add heat penalties and movement penalties, improve JJ "acceptance" (no more shaking reticle), could be adjusted on a per mech basis or even location basis (another quark to mess with I guess), and could even be used to curb alphas by adding more area to the cone (rather than ghost heat). It could even have the potential to inflict "high damage taken" penalties, rather than the "your screen shakes like it's an earthquake, but your shots aren't actually affected at all".

It has potential is all I'm saying. It could address a lot of current issues. I'm not saying it would be perfect nor that it might have some other negative impacts. (Pros vs cons.) I think it would be a reasonable option for a PTS if nothing else. See if it felt better or played better...

#58 Wil McCullough

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 14 February 2019 - 05:36 PM

Pgi seems to have some problems with direction for the game in that everyone seems to want something different for the end product and they're all responsible for their own little slice of the game so the end result is something quite confused. That's quite common in corporate though.

The main issue i see is that pgi is quite hamfisted and has a reputation for some kind of reverse midas. You give them gold, they turn it into ****.

First there was fp and how it was heralded as the main game and qp was just a temporary filler. Four pillars, blah blah.blah. then.it turned out they weren't even working on it and that everything shown to the public was vaporware.

And then there's the skill tree. It was a pretty cool player-born idea to make the previous rule of 3 xp system more meaningful. Pgi turned it into a skill shrub with almost zero meaningful choices and flavor. Like do you really need a series of 1% nodes when they can be combined into a single larger node? And every node is bland. There was no thought put in to make it really customizable and build defining. Coupled with engine desynch, it also made entire branches into noob traps.

I stopped playing because of all these decisions and how stagnant the game has gotten. I have no doubt i could reinstall and play tonight and the game will be exactly the same as i left it a year ago. The only reason why i'm still here is because mechwarrior has a special place in my heart and i'm still waiting for mwo to be the game it could have been. So far, it's been band aid after band aid features/fixes that haven't been revisited. Chris is revisiting weapon balance so that's a step in the right direction but mwo is being overwhelmingly carried on the shoulders of alex's art.



#59 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,457 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 14 February 2019 - 11:19 PM

Quote

A cone of fire (and it wouldn't have to be big) would probably be an improvement to this game due to the nature of it's spread hit boxes. It would spread damage a little more, preventing high alpha values from ripping apart a single location (unless you took measures shrink the cone, such as standing still or making sure you always ran cool, each could be risky to do in a fire fight sometimes).


When 5 Mechs firing to a Single Traget =the Target destroyed with Pin Point or without ...Problem is with CoF the Game harsher for new Players and uncoordinated Teams = same Problems like before and more harsh for players thats not can hit targets without LRMS its still standing or moved.Im seeing Players tahts not can hit a shutdown Atlas in 200m , while nothing experience in Mouse playing or Plays with a gamecontroller.


Convergence(Dice Luck) great for TT thats the first Round not ended with a aimed Headshot from 2 Hex Distance.

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 14 February 2019 - 11:21 PM.


#60 Greyhart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 894 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 15 February 2019 - 05:52 AM

There are a number of ways you can use the damage system to achieve the effects of a cone of fire. You could actually do it in a predictable fashion, so an armour part can take X damage in 1 second anything over that threshold is transferred to the adjacent parts.

This should help on the learning curve as there will be a better chance of surviving and therefore learning by playing the game more.

As for pilots I think I will do a separate thread on pilots as the focus on the mech as avatar I think has been a flaw in the game that has hampered development by limiting how game modes like FP are done.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users