149 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Additional:
I would actually dare say that we could use more attention to lore, and more lore into the game; rather than less. However, the aspects of lore I'm referring to are not necessarily "hard numbers" or "weapon stats", but parts that can help determine how things operate by adding flavor to certain aspects of items. (Without a specific example, it's hard to mention anything specific.)

I'm personally a fan of more dispersed weapons fire, with adjusting "cone of fire" like effects (similar to a lot of first person shoots actually), where each weapon is more likely to hit slightly different spots on a mech depending upon certain situations. These situations could be based upon: Speed, jumping/landing, taking strong hits, stationary, heat levels, targeting computer options, number of weapons discharging, etc. (As a few examples.)

Though I already know that the "skill" crowd would probably lynch me, I believe that some aspect to decrease the "perfect" convergence of our weapons would not only increase skills impact on the game (knowing when and how to shoot for better accuracy), but would also increase time to kill and make hit box shapes less "hit or miss" (if you know what I mean). It's an aspect in lore that could be flavorfully done and help improve the game.

As a counter example, having it so ammo could just "cook" off, causing premature death because "you ran hot" probably would be a section of lore that would be harmful to the game as a whole, right along with "any time an ammo crit is destroyed, it WILL ALWAYS explode". These are aspects of lore that, though great for lore and TT, would be detrimental to a game setting such as this. This I think is a good example of lore that, for this game setup, can be ignored or adjusted to better suit the game itself.

(Of course, what parts of lore people feel would be good for the game and what ones to ignore will be different for every person...)

[VonBruinwald]

Tesunie, on 24 October 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

Though I already know that the "skill" crowd would probably lynch me, I believe that some aspect to decrease the "perfect" convergence of our weapons would not only increase skills impact on the game (knowing when and how to shoot for better accuracy), but would also increase time to kill and make hit box shapes less "hit or miss" (if you know what I mean). It's an aspect in lore that could be flavorfully done and help improve the game.

There was an argument a few years back about changing things to give arm weapons perfect convergence and torso weapons no convergence... People got mad.

[Prototelis]

Tesunie, on 24 October 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

(Without a specific example, it's hard to mention anything specific.)

I have an example;

Changes to ECM and free C3 were excellent changes over the board game lore.

Quote

I'm personally a fan of more dispersed weapons fire, with adjusting "cone of fire" like effects (similar to a lot of first person shoots actually), where each weapon is more likely to hit slightly different spots on a mech depending upon certain situations.

No.

Quote

Though I already know that the "skill" crowd would probably lynch me, I believe that some aspect to decrease the "perfect" convergence of our weapons would not only increase skills impact on the game (knowing when and how to shoot for better accuracy), but would also increase time to kill and make hit box shapes less "hit or miss" (if you know what I mean). It's an aspect in lore that could be flavorfully done and help improve the game.

The skill crowd would still pound your face in. The only thing you'd end up with is a less fun game with another layer of RNG on top. RNG in action games is bad.

[Tesunie]

VonBruinwald, on 24 October 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

There was an argument a few years back about changing things to give arm weapons perfect convergence and torso weapons no convergence... People got mad.

I actually disagree with that proposal as well. Now, if we maintained the old delayed convergence of the past (which was removed for HSR as the two were not compatible, and I'll choose HSR over delayed convergence of the past), having torso weapons converge slower than arm weapons would have been interesting and a good addition to add for weapons in vulnerable arms. But no convergence on torso weapons? No. I think that's kinda silly when so many mechs have most of their weapons torso mounted...

Prototelis, on 24 October 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

I have an example;

Changes to ECM and free C3 were excellent changes over the board game lore.

I have to agree that the current ECM functionality is agreeable to this game format, compared to the discription from lore. However, there are also some lore functions that easily could have been fun and helpful additions to this game as well, such as creating sensor ghosts (making it look like there are more mechs there than what really are), sensor spoofs (false readings on where the ECM mech actually is) and even masking what type of mech and it's loadouts (but not actual locks) all could have been valid possibilities for this game format. Maybe too complex for this game/engine or for actual player controlled abilities compared to a "blanket" always active ability...

But lets face it, if ECM could make it look like a ton of allies are around that enemy target, you'd probably be more hesitant when chasing it... Could have been a nice thing depending upon how it could have been added in...


The partial C3 we have for free (we don't have full C3 functions in game surprisingly) is a good deviation from lore. It does help with aspects of lore we can't accurately depict within the game, such as radioed enemy locations for LRM indirect bombardments (which did not need C3 to shoot LRMs in lore, just a spotter). The partial C3 we have permits indirect fire weapons to be possible, while also providing information that teammates would readily share with each other in lore. Only thing we are missing is the advanced targeting aspects of C3, making it easier for teammates within a C3 network to shoot enemies near a C3 ally... (Good luck implementing that into the game...)

Prototelis, on 24 October 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

No.

My question, though I do respect if you disagree, is why do you not like the (very rough) idea presented? A simple "no" is not very informative. Why can't we embrace an aspect of lore that was (sorta) in the game before hand and only removed for HSR capabilities? A cone of fire like effect might be compatible with HSR (I wouldn't know), is a common element in many first person shooter games (that all require 'skill' to play well in; such as Halo, Destiny (1+2), Warframe...); as well as star fighter games (Star Conflict), and would actually boost skill levels for more accurate fire.

What about the idea do you not like? Are there any parts of it you do like? What suggestions would you have that could reduce the "pin point accuracy" of our weapons? (Something that's been causing problems with the game, when combined with how our hit box system works.)

Prototelis, on 24 October 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

The skill crowd would still pound your face in. The only thing you'd end up with is a less fun game with another layer of RNG on top. RNG in action games is bad.

As mentioned above, many games incorporate these kinds of functions into their games. Many of said games balance weapons by the size of the cone, how fast it expands, and how fast it shrinks.

Once more, this falls into "what lore do we choose to ignore and what do we include" complex of your statement. By lore (every aspect of it from my knowledge), our weapons should have lower convergence speed than we currently do (which currently is instant convergence). Back in this games early years, we had delayed convergence but was removed due to a conflict with HSR (as mentioned previously). The "cone of fire" aspect would be a way to possibly reintroduce that delayed convergence while also appeasing lore.

Now, I can see a problem with cone of fire if we are talking about large changes in convergence for small things. However, I'd imagine that things would add small amounts to that cone, but get too many of those aspects at once and you may find your shots missing and going wide.
I'd see stationary as the most accurate form, with a pin point cone (AKA: no cone at all). From there, moving would add a couple of pixels to the cone (AKA: very small change). Running full speed would add a few more. Say you are running hot (75% or more), that might be a few more pixels. Landing from a fall or using your JJs actively, a few more pixels. At 90% heat levels, you might have a few more pixels more... You'd really only have a wide cone if you are suffering most if not all of said effects. Otherwise, your shots would be more likely to just hit a component of your target just slightly off from your reticle. (AKA: It would/should never be like shooting an SRM volley or even an LBx. At it's worse, it might act like an LBx5 or 10 spread, enough that some shots may not land... but I'll repeat that would be at my imagined worst, meaning full run, over 90% heat levels, landing/jumping (active JJs), and maybe even shooting weapons "above targeting computer thresholds" (rather than Ghost Heat) all at the same time as you are shooting your weapons.)

If you were imagining a huge cone of fire effect that would make every shot possibly miss on a slow walk/standing stationary... that is not how I would envision this effect at all... It should spread only enough under normal conditions to spread shots to maybe hit a different component, say instead of everything landing just on the CT, some shots might land on the side torsos (if running, at under 75% heat)... at worse some shots might spread enough (with lots of things taking effect like 90% heat, active JJs from a full run...) the arms... on a mech probably 600m away.

If done well, it would be a minor change to the game play but should be enough to reward more skillful play still and spreading some small bits of damage onto unintended targets. (While also posing the ability to remove GH from the game completely, as well as some hard weapon firing caps (Gauss), as they could be penalized with a jump to the accuracy cone. Then, sure, shoot four Gauss rifles at the same time. They would be unlikely to strike the same component, if all of them even hit depending upon how much of a penalty is placed upon that grouping.)


I see the potential of such a system. I'd love to "give it a try" and see how it felt/worked off paper and in actual practice. I'm not going to claim it would be "perfect" with the game in practice, but on paper it looks decent to me.

[overheal]

I hadn't played since beta up until last week or so.

I would like to add some basic free camo specs. I happen to like the idea that I can assign my mech some snow forest camo and actually blend in to some map features. But it turned me off immediately that those 'cosmetics' were and are outrageously priced out. Even shades of almost practically the same blue, and these are all just RGB values. Camo I understand. Not this.

[Vxheous]

overheal, on 24 October 2019 - 05:46 PM, said:

I hadn't played since beta up until last week or so.

I would like to add some basic free camo specs. I happen to like the idea that I can assign my mech some snow forest camo and actually blend in to some map features. But it turned me off immediately that those 'cosmetics' were and are outrageously priced out. Even shades of almost practically the same blue, and these are all just RGB values. Camo I understand. Not this.

For many many years, weekly events gave out colors/mc to buy colors. Just by playing the game, you can get most colors for free.

[Prototelis]

I can see how that is damaging to NPE tho.

Seems like most games that rely on cosmetics for revenue offer more of a taste within reach of new players.

I would also support camo changes after map selection because it wouldn't create an even more stale meta and I'm still going to color most of my mechs 90's neon anyways.

[LordNothing]

new maps always works.

new mechs, nah, unless its is omnis or quads or something with a source of novelty, don't bother.

new game modes, lol. pgi doesn't know how to make any game mode other than skirmish, fp conquest, and seige, and we have those.

faction play improvements? stop messing with faction play, it finally starting to recover from the year of faction play.

re-balancing. so long as its primary focus is to resurrect trashtier mechs and seldom used weapons, and not used to beat down the good stuff.

just be happy the servers are still up.

Edited by LordNothing, 24 October 2019 - 07:09 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

LordNothing, on 24 October 2019 - 07:06 PM, said:

re-balancing. so long as its primary focus is to resurrect trashtier mechs and seldom used weapons, and not used to beat down the good stuff.

100x

[Mystere]

VonBruinwald, on 24 October 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

There was an argument a few years back about changing things to give arm weapons perfect convergence and torso weapons no convergence... People got mad.

And the maddest of them all … and by that I mean "absolutely clinically insane" … were those who conflated convergence with RNG.

Edited by Mystere, 24 October 2019 - 07:56 PM.

[Prototelis]

Lawl.

It's still a dumb idea and an actual edge case of the correct amount of luore.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

a change at 'the very top' maybe?

if not in mindset, then in person. this game could be way better with a bit of effort, but the thing is:
the minimal effort being put into it has, over the years, ALWAYS gone in the wrong direction.

but hey..
I'm sure that with the exact same people & mindset, mw5 will be a great hit.
*cough*

[ingramli]

1. Removal of skill tree (grind)
2. Removal of consumables
3. Removal of engine desync
4. Removal of isXL ST loss death
5. Removal of heat spike for cXL/LFE
6. Buff STD engine (giving additional heatsinks/structure buff)

[Sjorpha]

I haven't left.

As far as keeping me around and possibly spending money, I'd really like to hear news about renewal of the licence and long term commitment to the game. Currently I feel way too uncertain about how long the game will exist to spend money, if I knew I could count to the game being here a couple more years it would be easier to be motivated.

I'm glad we've had a resurgence to Faction Play population recently, anything to boost and support that would be much appreciated.

[Willard Phule]

Dee Eight, on 22 October 2019 - 07:42 PM, said:

Well.... technically all fusion engines are rendered useless (they auto-scram to shutdown, don't go exploding like some of the games would suggest) upon receiving 3 critical hits to their shielding. Standard, Light fusion, XL, XXL, same result happens. The thing is... NO WHERE in this game does PGI apply the engine critical hits rule anywhere except with side torso destruction and for that matter they completely ignore critical hits to all other major components of the mech such as sensors, life support, the gyro, the actuators... all of which will make a player's day bad in Battletech. Its entire possible in BT for an engine to take 3 critical hits just from CT damage without any being applied to the side torso locations of an non-standard engine. But again...that never happens in this game.

This. This, right here. This is one of the biggest differences in the mechanics of BT versus all of the MWO titles. It's as if they're unable to give the engine a physical presence and count the number of times it's hit. Same with the gyro.

[overheal]

Faction play is alright, however there is a lot more Inner Sphere variety over Clan. I'd like to see more options for Clan Mechs. I bought the Halloween Bundle and of course, not a one of them is for Clan. Great boon for IS players though.

Thing about colors and all that though is that as the filthy casual I am, I have no concept that 'in the future' I will be getting free MC and free colors and this and that.

For an "online" ('MMO lite') game I do find it a bit confusing that the IS map is so blank (is this a Clan/faction mechanic?) like I can't even see the gravity value of Terra which should be QED, much less a fun little blurb about each planet the way Battletech (PC) has in its map.

And the maps yes, something I joked about last night on chat: In the far future of the 32nd (31st?) Century, fight across hundreds of worlds, engage in countless thousands of skirmishes - all proxied by the same 8 maps or so. You've traveled across the Inner Sphere forwards and backwards but dammit if its the first time you've stepped on [Random Planet X] you already know before you drop which rock/hill is your favorite clay-shooting spot. In a word, it's Dull. I guess that's a 'lore vs. war' argument.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Prototelis, on 21 October 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

This game has no e-sports.

They have done nothing to make this game e-sports outside of hosting a couple of tournaments.

They have however made balance decisions based on arbitrary board game mechanics.

Less lore, more war.

Battletech not a Universe for Esport with all his variants from chassies and weapons ...BT and MW not a Game for esport , better games like Robot War or Heavy Gear for it ..MW a Roleplay Combined waruniverse, more like Star wars

Its not a Arena Shooter with only a Character Model and 1 Hitzone and a Handfull weapons ...and in this Way from the Basic Bad for a esport Game .
why you play not E-Sport games ? give nough ..The Leaderboard Yunkies not the Navel of the world , many from this only narcistic ,and autistic Folks thats sunbathing in her own Elitism and thinking all of the World must follow her minds and all games must seeing like her View of Gaming ...No , im for more games thats not Clones of other games a,nd not all have the same Mechanics
the Leaderboard Yunkies and the Dreams of russ to bind People like you to MWO ,drives away most the BT and MW Fans...A Fangame from a Fanuniverse not for Fans of it..

you will arena Games , than play Arena Games and not MWO ...its not CoD or UT, Fortnite or Halo

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 26 October 2019 - 12:02 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Falconer Cyrus, on 24 October 2019 - 11:15 AM, said:

There is a way to do this quite easyly!
Semigenerated maps like it was done in "XCOM : UFO defence" (1994).

thats good for a Strategical game ,and looks ugly in a egoshooter, greatest problem ist to binding teh Modules thats look in each sense realistic without no technical problems ,and Ciotys, Streets, Rivers, and bridges over it a Big Big problem for procedual Terrain (MW5 has no bridges or Streets or Rivers for example) and teh most procedual Terrains looks like a Mona lisa created from a AI ...with many Bugs, like floating Objects and buildings and Holes and Glitches in terrains..by Procedual terrain no Mapmaker controlled and fixed the maps

[Prototelis]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 25 October 2019 - 11:30 PM, said:

you will arena Games , than play Arena Games and not MWO ...its not CoD or UT, Fortnite or Halo

All of the previous games in this series have in one way or another been arena shooters.

[Falconer Cyrus]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 25 October 2019 - 11:52 PM, said:

thats good for a Strategical game ,and looks ugly in a egoshooter, greatest problem ist to binding teh Modules thats look in each sense realistic without no technical problems ,and Ciotys, Streets, Rivers, and bridges over it a Big Big problem for procedual Terrain (MW5 has no bridges or Streets or Rivers for example) and teh most procedual Terrains looks like a Mona lisa created from a AI ...with many Bugs, like floating Objects and buildings and Holes and Glitches in terrains..by Procedual terrain no Mapmaker controlled and fixed the maps

Probably you misunderstood me (or I have misunderstood you). I told about a random combination of pre-generated areas.