78 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

MWO is an online pvp shooter. That doesn't make anyone who plays only pvp shooters "comp" guys or "Type-As". Those are basics of online pvp shooters.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 12:40 PM, said:

because mwo is an online pvp shooter not a 90s Sierra point and click game.

I never said that playing it makes you Comp or Type-A, I simply said that the guys that are competitive, are like that.

PVP doesn't mean it's competitive, it means it simply matches one player with another, as opposed of using an AI it uses player input.

And while MWO is PVP shooter, it is also a Mechwarrior title, and part of it is homing weapons.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

I played MWO for probably half its life so far on a ****** laptop. No complaints. No need to have PGI aim for me.

Sure.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

MWO isn't poorly optimized.

However, it's an ~8 year old game. You not being able to run an ~8 year old game isn't someone else's fault.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I am using a Predator Helios 300 2019 (i5 9th-Gen + Geforce GTX 1660-Ti), the blue one, and I'm still not getting consistent 60. 40 FPS average more like it, and I'm getting my shots okay, no need to rely on homing weapons.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

Actually, "comp guys" have always espoused proper balance. "Comp guys" have always been against trash mechanics like LRMs that punish new players.

I agree. But there are different preferences between different faction in the community. Some people like their homing weapons, and then there are those that don't.

What we have right now is actually a good compromise, but there still is an issue with homing weapons that causes dissatisfaction. This idea is supposed to give you that, to make homing weapons high-skill high-reward without hurting the lower player base.

Acting like an elitist isn't helping. I am not justifying mediocrity, I'm simply pointing out that it's a fact of life.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

Wanting good balance in a pvp game doesn't make one "comp exclusive". I've never played a single comp match.

I agree. I still don't understand how that relates to my response though.

There are different approaches to balance, and while right now LRMs are rather balanced to be honest, there is still some dissatisfaction from the higher ups because of it's nature, and that is what I think this system can address.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

MWO isn't a twitch shooter.

You not being able to walk and aim at the same time doesn't change that.

I think he meant that it's too twitchy for a MechWarrior. I kinda agree.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 October 2020 - 02:43 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

I never said that playing it makes you Comp or Type-A, I simply said that the guys that are competitive, are like that.

PVP doesn't mean it's competitive, it means it simply matches one player with another, as opposed of using an AI it uses player input.

What does the *V* stand for again?

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

And while MWO is PVP shooter, it is also a Mechwarrior title, and part of it is homing weapons.

Lots of things are part of *Mechwarrior* and *Battletech*. That doesn't mean they have to persist across all. It also doesn't mean they have to be the pathetic state they are in MWO.


Sure.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I am using a Predator Helios 300 2019, the blue one, and I'm still not getting consistent 60.

Cool story, lots of people don't get a consistent fps and do just fine.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

I agree. But there are different preferences between different faction in the community. Some people like their homing weapons, and then there are those that don't.

So what?

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

What we have right now is actually a good compromise, but there still is an issue with homing weapons that causes dissatisfaction. This idea is supposed to give you that, to make homing weapons high-skill high-reward without hurting the lower player base.

Not really possible with autoaim.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

I think he meant that it's too twitchy for a MechWarrior. I kinda agree.

Because things like gausszilla never existed in previous mechwarrior games.

VeeOt Dragon, on 14 October 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

were they sit LRM are rather well balanced no need for further nerfs. in any game with multiple weapon types you never want to make any one weapon useless. what haters tend to forget is that LRM/ATM are support weapons.

Support weapons don't exist.

VeeOt Dragon, on 14 October 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

hell i think the emphasis on the Brawl is ludicrous,

Which emphasis?

There is very little brawling in mwo.

VeeOt Dragon, on 14 October 2020 - 02:00 PM, said:

in any combat scenario if you are in knife fight range you done ****** up.

Is mechwarrior, a game about giant 100 ton 60 foot tall robots who have weapons with max ranges of a few hundred meters a real life combat scenario?

[The6thMessenger]

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

What does the *V* stand for again?

Versus.

Of course that is also part of the term PVE.

Don't tell me you're trash-talking the trees, or rather the very bots you're murdering.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Lots of things are part of *Mechwarrior* and *Battletech*. That doesn't mean they have to persist across all. It also doesn't mean they have to be the pathetic state they are in MWO.

Sure, I agree.

But that is still a guiding direction. If you play the game like how you would generic shooters, that defeats the point of it being a MechWarrior.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Cool story, lots of people don't get a consistent fps and do just fine.

Sure buddy.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

So what?

So for the competitive guys that **** on homing weapons, they can play on an environment where it isn't a "disgraceful" weapon.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Because things like gausszilla never existed in previous mechwarrior games.

How does that work? "Twitch" in this context is in the speed of reaction and putting holes.

Being pinpoint doesn't make it a twitch shooter.

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Which emphasis?

There is very little brawling in mwo.

Sadly, I agree. I like Brawling.

[thievingmagpi]

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

Versus.

Thanks. Nice work.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

But that is still a guiding direction. If you play the game like how you would generic shooters, that defeats the point of it being a MechWarrior.

Except it is a shooter.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

Sure buddy.

Cool story bro.

Yep all those people in this game who are simply held back because they can't get 60 fps. lmao.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

So for the competitive guys that

Oh you mean players in a pvp shooter, got it.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

**** on homing weapons, they can play on an environment where it isn't a "disgraceful" weapon.

Or one could just stop trying to make auto aim a thing.

The6thMessenger, on 14 October 2020 - 03:00 PM, said:

How does that work? "Twitch" in this context is in the speed of reaction and putting holes.

Being pinpoint doesn't make it a twitch shooter.

And snapshots are barely a thing in this game.

[LordNothing]

been avoiding this one because it looked like it had **** show written all over it.

problem with the casual-comp discrepancy is that its not a black and white thing, there are shades of gray. any selective balancing only solidifies the camps when they need to be unified, and screw anyone in the middle.

its actually a lot like the us election this year.

thats beside the fact that balance is expensive and double balance is double expensive. pgi only did 0.5 balance.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 October 2020 - 03:48 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

LordNothing, on 14 October 2020 - 03:45 PM, said:

. any selective balancing only solidifies the camps when they need to be unified, and screw anyone in the middle.

Also a wrong a assumption.

[John Bronco]

Yeah, or just the fact that, you know, they're aren't going to double the balancing and maintenance of the game.

[The6thMessenger]

BlaizerP, on 14 October 2020 - 04:56 PM, said:

Yeah, or just the fact that, you know, they're aren't going to double the balancing and maintenance of the game.

Fair enough.

I'm not that diligent either.

If they reduced the lock-cone to 5-degrees and lock-time to 0.3s within Comp-Balance, while it might be a good offset to buff homing weapons to relevance in the upper tier, granted that's a new balance scheme.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 October 2020 - 04:58 PM.

[Pajama Boy]

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 02:46 PM, said:

Support weapons don't exist.

Wait what? What do you call the plasma pistol then? Also you could even say that arty strikes are support weapons if you wanted to but yeah, weapons that are only great for suppressive fire have been a thing in gaming for years and no one ever complains about them because their role is usually obvious. I would actually also call MGs support weapons. They are distracting and annoying but unless you hold them on target for awhile, you're not usually getting any kills. Unless you're a locust. You kind of just want your target to look at you and try to squash the annoying light mech while your friendly dual LB20 King Crab crests the hill. Support is a weapon type and a role on the battlefield.

Also I have to agree with LordNothing here, let's look on a broader scale at the Tabletop vs Non-Tabletop debate whenever a new game is made. The folks who believe MW should just use the exact tabletop rules and stats and the folks who don't care and just want a nice videogame literally can't have peace. Any compromise breaks the strictly tabletop rules that those people abide by. One or both parties will always get in each other's way. These kind of situations are pretty frequent in the MW community for whatever reason. as there are a lot of people who are just straight up unwilling to compromise or have a discussion about it (not saying that about anyone here). I'm saying no matter what changes PGI makes in regards to missiles, someone is going to be left behind for any variety of reasons.

Edited by Pajama Boy, 14 October 2020 - 05:57 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Pajama Boy, on 14 October 2020 - 05:56 PM, said:

One or both parties will always get in each other's way. These kind of situations are pretty frequent in the MW community for whatever reason. as there are a lot of people who are just straight up unwilling to compromise or have a discussion about it (not saying that about anyone here). I'm saying no matter what changes PGI makes in regards to missiles, someone is going to be left behind for any variety of reasons.

Kind of why I want this, Having tournament Rules means both side get what they want without forcing the preferences of one another.

[thievingmagpi]

Pajama Boy, on 14 October 2020 - 05:56 PM, said:

Also I have to agree with LordNothing here, let's look on a broader scale at the Tabletop vs Non-Tabletop debate whenever a new game is made. The folks who believe MW should just use the exact tabletop rules and stats and the folks who don't care and just want a nice videogame literally can't have peace. Any compromise breaks the strictly tabletop rules that those people abide by. One or both parties will always get in each other's way. These kind of situations are pretty frequent in the MW community for whatever reason. as there are a lot of people who are just straight up unwilling to compromise or have a discussion about it (not saying that about anyone here). I'm saying no matter what changes PGI makes in regards to missiles, someone is going to be left behind for any variety of reasons.

Difference is one group is flat out right and verges on delusional. MWO is not tabletop.

[The pessimistic optimist]

thievingmagpi, on 14 October 2020 - 08:20 PM, said:

Difference is one group is flat out right and verges on delusional. MWO is not tabletop.

You seem to not know words https://www.merriam-...nary/adaptation

MWO is an https://www.merriam-...nary/adaptation of table top DUH. Why bother with Mechwarrior license if it doesn't matter then? You seem to think the Mechwarrior license they pay for is worthless it seems ? I didn't throw down money to help this game get off the ground so they can ignore the Mechwarrior license.

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 October 2020 - 12:31 AM.

[Pajama Boy]

SirSmokes, on 15 October 2020 - 12:16 AM, said:

You seem to not know words https://www.merriam-...nary/adaptation

MWO is an https://www.merriam-...nary/adaptation of table top DUH. Why bother with Mechwarrior license if it doesn't matter then? You seem to think the Mechwarrior license they pay for is worthless it seems ? I didn't throw down money to help this game get off the ground so they can ignore the Mechwarrior license.

Is that to imply that if a game doesn't want to use the tabletop stats it can't be considered an adaptation of Battletech? Or that the Mechwarrior/Battletech license is wasted on a game that doesn't utilize tabletop balancing?

Quite frankly I think that attitude sucks and if we look closer at the definition of adaptation you love to share so much, we get this.



Huh, interesting, I think I'll click on this and dig a little deeper here...



Oh wow! Look at that. So we can adapt tabletop to a videogame by modifying the stats then!

Edited by Pajama Boy, 15 October 2020 - 10:09 AM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Pajama Boy, on 15 October 2020 - 10:02 AM, said:

Is that to imply that if a game doesn't want to use the tabletop stats it can't be considered an adaptation of Battletech? Or that the Mechwarrior/Battletech license is wasted on a game that doesn't utilize tabletop balancing?

Quite frankly I think that attitude sucks and if we look closer at the definition of adaptation you love to share so much, we get this.



Huh, interesting, I think I'll click on this and dig a little deeper here...



Oh wow! Look at that. So we can adapt tabletop to a videogame by modifying the stats then!

Sure they already did they changed values for some weapons systems too balance the game nothing new doesn't bother me. So point still stands Mechwarrior is adaptation of tabletop and Mechwarrior license still matters and I didn't pay money for the Mechwarrior license to be ignored. Tell me why did PGI pay for Mechwarrior license and got us all exited about this GREAT Mechwarrior game and now that doesn't matter because?

[Pajama Boy]

SirSmokes, on 15 October 2020 - 11:05 AM, said:

Sure they already did they changed values for some weapons systems too balance the game nothing new doesn't bother me. So point still stands Mechwarrior is adaptation of tabletop and Mechwarrior license still matters and I didn't pay money for the Mechwarrior license to be ignored. Tell me why did PGI pay for Mechwarrior license and got us all exited about this GREAT Mechwarrior game and now that doesn't matter because?

I'm not really understanding your point then? Because you take issue with the idea of weapons being changed to suit gameplay but not balance changes? And by this logic there could only be one genre of Battletech based shooter and that's MW? To loop it back to the beginning I have no problem with weapons like missiles and don't think they should be removed in any capacity but not because of a love for tabletop. A game which btw I and many other fans of MW have never played and exists in a completely different genre on a completely different medium. Which none of the balancing information created for it was built for what is at it's core, an FPS.

Your point doesn't even stand because the definition of adaptation can cover any level of modification. You must absolutely hate games like Mechassault or Battletech on the Genesis then since the rules had to be heavily modified to suit that kind of game.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Pajama Boy, on 15 October 2020 - 11:32 AM, said:

I'm not really understanding your point then? Because you take issue with the idea of weapons being changed to suit gameplay but not balance changes? And by this logic there could only be one genre of Battletech based shooter and that's MW? To loop it back to the beginning I have no problem with weapons like missiles and don't think they should be removed in any capacity but not because of a love for tabletop. A game which btw I and many other fans of MW have never played and exists in a completely different genre on a completely different medium. Which none of the balancing information created for it was built for what is at it's core, an FPS.

Your point doesn't even stand because the definition of adaptation can cover any level of modification. You must absolutely hate games like Mechassault or Battletech on the Genesis then since the rules had to be heavily modified to suit that kind of game.

There are loads of people that don't think lock on weapons should be in the game and if they are in the game they should be nerfed in to uselessness or just never used at all. My point was if yea don't like LRM,SSRM,ATM too bad point still stands. Those are Mechwarrior weapons and there a big part of battle in Mechwarrior/Battletech if yea don't like them too bad to sad. I have no problem with changing rules for a different mediums what important thing is what were those number typing to simulate

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 October 2020 - 11:47 AM.

[Pajama Boy]

SirSmokes, on 15 October 2020 - 11:42 AM, said:

There are loads of people that don't think lock on weapons should be in the game and if they are in the game they should be nerfed in to uselessness or just never used at all. My point was if yea don't like LRM,SSRM,ATM too bad point still stands. Those are Mechwarrior weapons and there a big part of battle in Mechwarrior/Battletech if yea don't like them too bad to sad. I have no problem with changing rules for a different mediums what important thing is what were those number typing to simulate

And I agree with you about the missiles! But you're talking to someone who believes in making the game fun even if it means abandoning the tabletop rules. A game that plays fast and loose with the tabletop rules shouldn't be considered "not an adaptation of Battletech." That's like saying the movie Joker isn't an adaptation of Batman (which it absolutely is).

[The pessimistic optimist]

Pajama Boy, on 15 October 2020 - 11:53 AM, said:

And I agree with you about the missiles! But you're talking to someone who believes in making the game fun even if it means abandoning the tabletop rules. A game that plays fast and loose with the tabletop rules shouldn't be considered "not an adaptation of Battletech." That's like saying the movie Joker isn't an adaptation of Batman (which it absolutely is).

Here the thing about Tabletop rules the raw numbers are not as important as what are those number are trying to simulate I am with yea on that. Also long as the changes are in a sprite of what they were trying to simulate. Like changes to clan lasers no problem with those they are still longer range and higher damage then IS they don't have to be exactly like Tabletop values no

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 October 2020 - 05:09 PM.

[General Solo]

The answer is match making so that comps and casuals have a place.
But if that can't be done, then...

Increasing cooldown rate of gauss rifles to 1000% on Quad Gauss Kodiak 3 for casual players and

Increasing lock on angle to 180 degrees for Gauss rifles on Quad Gauss Kodiak 3 for casual players and

making gauss rifle lock on instant weather direct or indirect fire for Gauss rifles on Quad Gauss Kodiak 3 for casual players should bring back balance to MWO and make casuals guid and spend cashola in this competitive game.

Kodaik 3 Rulez

Ez peezzie

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 15 October 2020 - 06:37 PM.