Jump to content

Podcast - Three Moves Ahead


18 replies to this topic

#1 InnerSphereNews

    Member

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,773 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 09:50 AM

Podcast - Three Moves Ahead

A week ago, Russ Bullock and Bryan Ekman were invited to tape a podcast with Rob Zacny and Randall Bills.  The topic of discussion:  Does BattleTech hold up after all these years.

Head on over to the Three Moves Ahead website to listen!

Three Moves Ahead Episode 149: On the Care and Feeding of BattleMechs

Listen Here



#2 Dihm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,312 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationPlanet Trondheim

Posted 29 December 2011 - 10:08 AM

Listening now, let's see what sort of conspiracies I can come up with.

#3 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 29 December 2011 - 10:20 AM

World of Tanks link just above the link to discussion. What does it mean? :( --- CONSPIRACY! ;)


P.S: Was the interview in Hula clothes? :unsure:


EDIT: stopped at 19th minute, too long. ;)

Edited by Adridos, 29 December 2011 - 10:37 AM.


#4 GaussDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • LocationToronto

Posted 29 December 2011 - 10:59 AM

Ooooooh, goodie. I like how the interviewer gets straight to the point.

#5 Dihm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,312 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationPlanet Trondheim

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:06 AM

Interesting discussion on the Clans/Eras and how they TOTALLY confirmed we'll be able to use that as a filter on matches. And how they TOTALLY confirmed that they'll reward/penalize for breaking Zellbrigen, and how the clans are playable! And that they'll be restricting clans to using 2 stars against 3 lances of IS. Oh, and NO pinpoint accuracy!!

I hope I don't get banned.

Edited by Dihm, 29 December 2011 - 11:11 AM.


#6 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:22 AM

View PostDihm, on 29 December 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

I hope I don't get banned.


A day or two of rest wouldn't hurt your post count I think. ;)

Thanks for summing up the things about MW:O, if they are true. I'll check it somethimes, but not right now. ;)

#7 Atlas3060

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 661 posts
  • LocationFederated Suns

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:32 AM

Here's what I took from this:
1. 2012 looks like a good year for both Mechwarrior and Battletech fans rejoice everyone!
2. MWO going back to the TT source for inspiration instead of copying an older Mechwarrior game sounds like a great move.
3. Randall's scale for this game isn't just about size (going from simple warrior to freaking House Lord) but also about involvement (those that just want to shoot things to those who read every bit of fluff and story). As always, I've loved that vision. ;)
4. Though Battletech has rules for pretty much everything, they've also recognised the thirst for a quicker paced game. Strategic Ops thus gives us Battleforce and Quick Strike rules for faster pace games and larger scale games.
5. Boxed set will be available soon, the news I've read said January of 2011.
There are free downloads of the simpler rules for those who want a taste until the main shipment is in. (Sounding like a stim dealer here! :( )
6. MWO isn't just another real world shooter, but aren't just a digital table top either, a balancing act more like--they are their own path. Hopefully this will give gamers another avenue of fun and maybe even the boardgamers some entertainment.
Zoned out during Warmachine stuff.
7. Fan support of Quick Strike is building since it is a faster paced game that is more miniature base, much like Warmachine of a sorts.
Randall even said they're listening to this love of it and are contemplating. ;)
8. SHADOWRUN W00T! Sorry I just heard it mentioned.
9. Company on company (12x12 'Mechs) fighting on MWO with...maybe aerospace support? Squeeeee
10. GDL (Grey Death Legion) book trilogy mentioned, great reference for talking about the rarity of 'Mechs and the 3015 idea pitched for that previous Mechwarrior concept before MWO.
11. Randall I love the Light Gauss Rifle, don't listen to all the LGR haters. Sniping with that thing is fun.
12. Matches based on Tech era? nice idea. Game mode as a word mentioned. Possible bidding process for Clanners please? :unsure:
13. Looking into zellbrigen, the Clan system of honor in fighting, as a limitation for Clans. YES please! reward us players extra for sticking to the Honor road!
14. Both Catalyst and Piranha are looking at the metagame of the brands more closely and apparently gamers are reciprocating by actually wanting things like this. You're impacting the Universe, your actions matter.
15. WoT mentioned because if people loved tanks maybe they'll love 'Mechs. Optimism of gamers migrating to this even if they've never heard of Mechwarrior or Battletech.

I loved this interview.

Edited by Atlas3060, 29 December 2011 - 12:23 PM.


#8 Dihm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,312 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationPlanet Trondheim

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:35 AM

View PostAdridos, on 29 December 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:


A day or two of rest wouldn't hurt your post count I think. :(

Thanks for summing up the things about MW:O, if they are true. I'll check it somethimes, but not right now. ;)

Hello Pot, my name is Kettle! ;)

But yes, very interesting interview, even if the stuff in it isn't set in stone, they've got the right direction for the product, from my perspective.

#9 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 785 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 12:37 PM

Did I hear wrong or did I hear him say that they could reward a player playing the part of Clansman if they actually fight the way a Clansman would? The key phrase being, "player playing the part of a Clansman".

#10 Demi-Precentor Konev

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 386 posts
  • LocationDnepropetrovsk, Galedon Military District

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:03 PM

This is the best podcast on the internet.

#11 GaussDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • LocationToronto

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:41 PM

It was great to hear this podcast. I just have some lingering thoughts (I don't expect the questions to be answered by devs put I propose them for the sake of speculation).


23:40 - In regards to LRM packs: "You know which clusters are going to hit where"?

So is it aim them constantly, or fire-and-forget with RNG spread damage? I know the Arty4 is going to be play a part in it, I remember them saying so. I really couldn't interpret this statement very well, but it made me really curious about missile mechanics.

24:38 - Russ or Bryan mention/ask why fast-paced FPS are so popular, is it because they're simply the best thing to offer atm?

In my case, personally yes, BF3 it is the best available for my tastes. I like multi-rolled combat and the team dynamic that comes with it. BF3 is not as mindless as people think because there's a lot of synergy that can be taken advantage of that would allow a mediocre team to beat a good team if they use them right. It has really high production value and you really have to think about your positioning/placement. To all the people who deride it as a mindless shooter A: You haven't played it B: You're an *****. But at the end of the day, I'd still much prefer another mech game. And I totally agree with what they say later, you shouldn't be insta-killed, a slugfest should be drawn out (basically high armor values vs weapon damage values) so that the other player actually has a chance to use tactics.

26:50 - The way Bryan sees MechWarrior and BT as being distinct entities

I totally agree. Even though he's talking about miniatures, but I agree with his philosophy that MechWarrior is a more fast-paced interpretation of BattleTech, that was the point (IMHO) of the MechWarrior PC games, I mentioned this distinction in another thread: http://mwomercs.com/...st/page__st__60

50:58 - HELL YES. (Aim vs RNG debate)

Being rewarded for being good is what a fundamental of the majority of games out there. Granted he mentioned some caveats, but at least this puts to rest the completely RNG-based damage distribution nonsense that some people were proposing. I'm sure there will be some distributive elements, but at least someone who actually knows how to aim gets rewarded for being good.

Russ @ 51:06 - "...that's somewhere where we're just plain different, and that's proper for a videogame; you're rewarded for your skill level, and your skill level is based on a lot of things, how you maneuver your mech. But, for the most part, if you're just better, you're going to hit more often and you're going to win. It's not about, you know, random dice rolls."

He goes on to say, "However, there a couple of interesting things we're doing that puts a little bit more depth into how you shoot your, you know, your weapons, rather than, perhaps, being all at one pinpoint accuracy point, but that there's some slight difference between weapons that might be on a torso and that might be on your arms."

Interesting point. So weapon placement distribution from the point of the shooter, makes for some variation in where damage lands, but they're known variables and controllable.

Bryan @ 51:51 - "Well, because everything is driven by a player's skill initially; like how well they can control their mech in a battlefield, we don't have to artificially introduce randomness. The simulation by virtue of how fast you're moving, the limits on how fast you can rotate and aim, and the fact that there's geometry, world geometry in front of you, a human-thinking opponent on the other side.. ...those factors and those variables take care of having to create this randomness, and addresses pilot skills and all the rules in the tabletop game."

Overall

Awesome podcast, thanks a lot PGI (and Randall).

Edited by GaussDragon, 29 December 2011 - 02:02 PM.


#12 Threat Doc

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bowman
  • The Bowman
  • 3,715 posts
  • LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:06 PM

I loved hearing about the BattleTech take on honor, the mention of it, and the fact that MechWarriors are supposed to be the knights of the battlefields. Honor is not mentioned as a Clan-only concept, but as a MechWarrior-wide concept; it is NOT just the Clans that are supposed to stick to an honor system.

I loved hearing how they love the board game, and all they’re doing to stick as close to the board game as possible. Sorry I can’t get into specifics, but I’m doing about five things at one time.

Don’t like hearing about the MW4: Mercs liking, but I understand where the host is coming from.

Love hearing about the BattleTech bug, people who haven’t yet been bitten by it, potentially being bit by it by playing MWO.

I’ll have to post more later, this is a really long podcast.

#13 Woodstock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationKrakow

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:49 AM

Hey

I know we are pre-beta but these are the ideas that stood out for me:


Missiles launch as a whole, fly in clusters and hit in clusters.
12 v 12 combat
MAYBE aerospace fighter support.
Clan exp rewards for honourable conduct.
Bidding – uneven sides … 10 v12?
Weapons don't have pin point accuracy (with differences between torso and arm mounted weapons.

:huh:

Rik

#14 RangerRob

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 325 posts
  • LocationEarthworks Inc., Cataphract Plant, Tikonov

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:23 AM

Nice Pod Cast guys. Lots of Good Stuff. Rewarding Clan players for playing using Clan dueling rules....very nice!

Really like how the tabletop conversation kept coming back to the Quick Strike rules.
Just discovered those rules myself...Wow are they fun.

If you have been looking for larger or quicker battles...Quick Strike lets you do both at the same time. While keeping a very strong battletech feel.
My next Campaign I'm running will be using the Quick Strike Rule set. Can't praise this rule set enough...Well done Randall!

#15 Odin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 498 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 09:53 AM

Just listened to it guys.
Thank you for the efforts, everyone involved - no really - thats great - to hear, its all in good hands and well thought out.
Looks like I' m already a fan of it :huh: , sorry can't help myself!

Happy holidays and hope you all have a blast doing it all
and Danke for the Podcast really!



S!

#16 Pht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:44 PM

A bit of manual transcription and some comments and questions...

Heck maybe the devs might even answer a few of them. :huh:

Anyways, it's nice to have more details, so thanks to Bryan, Russ, Randall, and Rob, for your time!

If I seem a bit blunt... well. I'm blunt. So, no, I'm not picking on you guys or trying to be a pushy ****...

On to my silliness... ;)


----
41:13-42:44 Russ:

... from the digital side of things we have similar problems with MWO but they manifest in other ways because we are a live simulation. we don't need to use a lot of the rule sets that are created and written about in the more expanded combat manuals.

---
Pht:
Any chance we could know which rules in particular?
---

We get a lot of stuff for free because we are using a physics engine,

---
Pht:
Using it for what... weapons fire behaviors? IE:Ballistics? Or are you referring to how the 'Mechs move and interact with their environment and things like losing a large amount of armor or a limb very quickly affecting the 'Mech's balance? Or are you using the PE for the environment itself?
---

... because we have line of sight, and we have the ability to do raycast and detect whether we are hitting objects. We don't need to create or simulate randomness or pilot skill, so that's one of the advantages we have, ...

---
Pht:
LOS detection I presume is just an easy way to replace the TTR los stuff? The joys of the computer format... :wub:

Raycasting - I'm guesing this is possibly to replace the to-hit mechanic? I can see getting rid of all of the rolls and such that represent the pilot's direct "gunnery" skills ...

(IE what the MechWarrior directly controls - aiming with the reticule, choosing when and in what mode and with what kind of ammo to fire from the weapons he chooses, and ultimately controlling how long his 'Mech's Targeting and Tracking suite gets to "chew on a fix" before firing)

... which we can control with our PC's. The game is, after all, all about putting US in the MechWarrior's seat as much as we possibly can be.

That said, is it recognized that the non-pilot gunnery skill modifiers provide a performance baseline ...

By "baseline" I don't mean slavish adherence to the form of the TT rules, but rather that those rules give a working outline of the capabilites of what's being modeled in MWO

... of the weapons (IE, the Heavy lasers are less accurate and are +1 to hit) and of the BattleMechs ability to use those weapons as well (IE, the target movement/in what kind of conceal/cover, type, range, and other modifiers for targets, along with the modifiers taken from what the firing 'Mech is doing while firing, etc)? These can be used, and would carry along with them the inherent balance already known and well documented from the parent gaming system (read, no need to pull your hair out on unintended consequences in balancing stuff).

These other rules lay out a nearly comprehensive set of BattleMech performance capabilites; IMO it's in getting these right that the MW video game genre would really move forwards into being a good First Person Armored Combat sim instead of just another different looking version of Wolfenstein 3D along with most of the other games on the shelves today.
---

... but that's also a disadvantage in the sense that we now have to balance every time that we introduce a new 'mech or a new weapon, ...

---
Pht:
I don't see that this would be a huge problem if the performance baselines of the weapons and BattleMechs were picked up from the parent system. You guys would know how the system would behave and how the players for the most part would interact with it; heck, all you'd have to do us bug Randall, or Weisman, they'd know it in depth. :lol:
---

... especially when the clan technology comes in we have to make sure that we don't introduce something that completely destabilizes the game making it so that the previous vehicles ... the previous 'mechs are no longer valuable to it's player base. so, for MWO's point of view the way we are designing how the combat works and how the simulation works... our focus is to make sure that we don't destabilize with the introduction of new content, in fact we hope to kind of add to the overall experience and the overall strategy by introducing things like arenas and maps that cater to the new introduction of new 'mechs and new weapons.

----
42:45-42:48.5 Randall:

and that’s got to be a difficult situation...

---
Pht:
I can imagine so. Look at all the unintended consequences that all the (seemingly arbitrary?) changes to the parent gaming system stuff as implemented in MW4 resulted in... armor values, damage values, the addition of a "one shot protection", nearly the whole combat mechanic being different as a result ...
---

----
50:09-50:54 Rob:

So when it comes to making a faithful video game adaptation of battletech one of the things that has really struck me in playing the battletech board game lately is ... boy, everyone is a crappier shot than I remember and I mean its ... I mean ... (laughs) I am joking but it's really a core component to ... to sort of the strategy and tactics of battletech which is that most of the time you are going to miss terribly ...

---
Pht:
Geeze rob. Quit trying to fire on those +7's and +8's and up all the time! :D

In all seriousness, though, when the MechWarrior (+3/+4) factor is taken out and you look at the capabilities of the weapons (the weapons are TERRIFYINGLY capable of hitting) and the capabilities of the BattleMechs in using those weapons... Um, no, one is not consigned to missing all the time, and the BattleMech's aim is not crappy; BattleMechs are capable of picking off other 'Mech sized targets on the horizon with direct-fire weapons.

I think it's safe to say that the weapons and the BattleMechs are more capable of hitting the target more reliably were they "perfectly Piloted" than all but the most extremely capable MechWarriors. Sort of how most RL guns are way more accurate than their users...
---

... and I mean how do you make that sort of ... the problem with the mechwarrior games at least is that the controls are just too good, everyone is too accurate. Are you going to try to do anything to sort of show up the limitations of 'mechs a little bit?

---
Pht:
Yeap. You're right. There's a very good reason that MW4 has been called "Quakewarrior IV." It's because mw4 concetrates all the fire of all weapons of a similar velocity fired at the same time on a single point, instead of doing it like the lore and the parent system; spreading the damage across the target.

This oversight has done horrible harm to the combat balance of the various MW video game interpretations of the Lore and the parent game system. It has bloated armor values, tossed the penetrating hits system into the toilet, made a oneshot protection a necessity, thrown weapons damage values out of whack, ruined the small weapons viability, and made Light BattleMechs as a class almost a joke in terms of combat, not to mention nearly completely changed the combat environment from somewhat epic to maddeningly "you twitch l3ss good and your comput3r is too slow, now you're d3ad, HAHAHA!"

Seriously, using the hit tables to establish how capable a BattleMech is of concentrating its fire and translating that into Video Game terms would go a LONG way towards curing this bumper crop of problems and short falls.

Not making a concerted effort to model how well a BattleMech can (or can't) concentrate it's multiple weapons under varying conditions across a target ... eech. I shudder to think of it.

I want to feel like I'm piloting an armored combat unit, where the BattleMech is bringing the weapons to bear...
---

----
50:54-51:50 Bryan:

I think there’s a few things ... I mean on the one hand no ... you know that's somewhere that you know we are just plain different and that's proper for a video game you know that we ... you're rewarded based on uh ... your skill level and your skill level is based on a lot of things and how you maneuver your 'mech but for the most part if you're just better ...

---
Pht:
Ok, Ok, I'm pretty sure you can't answer this at this point, but I'm going to ask anyways B) ... Our skill at ... what in particular? :lol:
---

... you're going to hit more often and you're gonna win and it's not gonna be about you know random dice rolls so that it's true I think that in and of itself is a true statement for sure about our game as when it comes to a board game. ...

---
Pht:
Wait, are you talking to the pinpoint accuracy/convergence problem, or are you talking about something that you think would take over the pilots "direct gunnery" skills I mentioned earlier? ... or is it something else?
---

... Um, however, there are a couple of interesting things we are doing that puts a little more depth into how you shoot you know your weapons um rather than perhaps saying being all at um, one pinpoint accuracy point but that there's some slight difference between weapons that might be on a torso than might be on your arms.

---
Pht:
Wait, are you guys raycasting out of individual weapons ports as a way to balance things? That would be a nightmare! No wonder Russ was talking about balancing being an issue... :S

Good lord, artwork that's made on cool factor instead of balance ... determining balance. :phear:

I do not envy you guys if you're trying to go this route.
---

----
51:50-53:32 Russ:

Well, because everything is driven by a players skill initially ...

---
Pht:
Um, there aren't avatar skills that will directly affect weapons fire resolution/weapons damage or the things that we can control directly from our PC's, are there?

I recall you guys said there would be no avatar skills that would give overwhelming advantages in combat...

You're giving me goosebumps, and not the good kind.
---

... like how well they can control their 'mech in a battlefield ... we don't have to artificially introduce randomness. The simulation by virtue of how fast you're moving, um the limits on how fast you can rotate and aim and the fact that there's geometry so world geometry in front of you and a human thinking opponent on the other side doing exactly what you're doing trying to avoid you, getting shot and getting destroyed while killing the opponent. Those factors and those variables take care of having to create this ... this randomness and addresses you know, pilot skills and all the things that exist in the tabletop ...

---
Pht:
How does this set of stuff relate to the performance capabilites of the weapons and the BattleMechs that I mentioned earlier?
---

... all the rules that exist in the tabletop game to make the game fair not just say, "I shoot you with all my weapons and I hit 100% of the time" so that's why there are dice in tabletop games is if there weren't you would always choose to do the maximum amount of damage. So we don’t really have as many of those problems ... uh, we have other problems though, which is if you have a really good player how ... what happens than ... is he able to be as efficient as possible within the game space and maximize his kills ...

---
Pht:
Again, with the goosebumps. If you're not giving avatar skills that make a huge difference in combat ...

and I don't think the skills that relate to keeping a 'Mech on its feet and upright and not shutting down could induce these problems

...

What's causing these problems?
---

... so we're always trying to balance how fast you can move with how fast you can shoot with how fast you can aim to make sure that players have a chance ... how much damage weapons do to make sure that you know you don't just walk around the corner and you're dead um that players have a chance to react and use tactics.

---
Pht:
Amen. Pace of combat and the lack of tactics and strategy being tweaked to allow for somewhat more "epic" combat is awesome.
---

Edited by Pht, 30 December 2011 - 06:52 PM.


#17 mekabuser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,846 posts

Posted 01 January 2012 - 10:04 AM

what a great interview!. Really really makes me confident that we are going to get a great product here. The passion of the devs is so obvious. I only pray that the mechanics of interaction between the mechs, weapons and enviroment<terrain etc> are as good as the vision these gents have.
I do enjoy many things the guys do at mwll, but so much of what they have achieved is completely nerfed by the horrible collision mechanic they are stuck with vis a vis mechs interacting with terrain and each other.
~S~ devs

#18 Kristov Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,909 posts

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:43 PM

Pht..I can answer a few of those questions, somewhat at least..

Player skills mean..eye hand coordination in most of the context you asked about..yes, PGI wants good eye hand coordination and twitch skills to matter in combat. Sometimes it means tactical and strategic abilities..how to analyze the situation and best work it to your benefit, so that twitch skills alone aren't the be all and end all of the game..but without them, you probably aren't going to be a Solaris Champion.

Balance issues..oh man, they did a nice bit on that, loved hearing their concerns and it sounds like they've got a good handle on it. FASA has acknowledged that the Clan thing fubar'd balance, didn't they even mention that in this podcast? Balance in TT rules is pretty simple, base line..go above it then you have to counter the good with something negative to get it back on the baseline. Clan Tech doesn't do that, never did, it totally unbalanced the game. In a video game, it's a little different but close to the same, set your baseline and for every + you need to add a - so it keeps to that baseline. Starting with IS Tech, you have a problem doing that when you introduce the Clans because their baseline is way up there compared to the IS baseline, which is way down here. PGI is going to introduce some earned skills that will HELP you with the various player skill based things..movement, aiming, but they won't TRUMP that skill. Sort of like putting a scope on a rifle..if you can't get close to the target without the scope, that scope won't actually put your rounds any closer, but it will give you some help in finding the target in the first place. IS tech vs Clan tech when it's introduced..that's where they'll see this being a problem, they acknowledge that but think they've hit upon a fix, which is awesome, because the fix isn't to fix anything, it's to give options to restrict tech used, but you can still go IS vs Clan and show who's really the best, I love that, did it in TT and in NBT as IS..great fun. When your weapons are just flat out inferior by such a huge factor, you have to outhink your opponent before you can outshoot them, and that's where I have the most fun, brains and twitch, just like Mech combat is supposed to be.

Placement of the weapon on the physical body of the Mech affecting where that weapon will fire..awesome, and no Pht, it won't make it more complicated or difficult, that was done in MW1/2/3/4, GEnie's MPBT, MPBT Solaris and BattleTech 3025..and even before that, older sims for WW1 and 2 aircraft did the same thing in the late 80s, early 90s. Ray casting from those weapon locations would simply allow for much more precise world interactions, and really help with convergence, which is what keep full alpha strikes from hitting the exact same pixel location except under perfect conditions, it's not impossible, but it's also not constant, since you can have those ray casters altering their angles constantly based on physical Mech movement/placement. Good way to handle that, really gives you so many more options for how you let earned skills impact on player skills.

As to the problems caused by players who's skills allow them to maximize efficiency..that's the elite players, the top dogs, who's skills as a gamer are such that they just really make anything they decide to master into an OP powerhouse of destruction. Anyone who's played any online PvP games has seen this, the guy who spends every freaking round using ONLY a knife and leads the kill counts AND his team is winning each round..for hours straight. People master specific things and make everyone else look like blind deaf monkeys tied down and staked out as bait..THOSE guys..they totally skew balance out the window, you can't, literally can't, balance anything for those folks. It's not like TT, they don't have ANY randomization going on on how well the Mechs moves, how well it targets, how well it hits those targets, and some people just have the eye hand coordination to master those as if born jacked into a computer. I've been one of those myself in a few games(years ago..but sometimes I can get back into that state! just takes a little more bourbon now), you can't balance for us, you either ignore us as the aberration we are, or you remove personal skill from the equation totally. That's the problem, they don't want to remove personal skill, and they've already seen that there will be whiners if player skill matters more then working the skill trees. No fixing it if player skill counts..they want it to..so..what to do, what to do...

#19 GaussDragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • LocationToronto

Posted 02 January 2012 - 12:59 PM

View PostKristov Kerensky, on 01 January 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

As to the problems caused by players who's skills allow them to maximize efficiency..that's the elite players, the top dogs, who's skills as a gamer are such that they just really make anything they decide to master into an OP powerhouse of destruction. Anyone who's played any online PvP games has seen this, the guy who spends every freaking round using ONLY a knife and leads the kill counts AND his team is winning each round..for hours straight. People master specific things and make everyone else look like blind deaf monkeys tied down and staked out as bait..THOSE guys..they totally skew balance out the window, you can't, literally can't, balance anything for those folks. It's not like TT, they don't have ANY randomization going on on how well the Mechs moves, how well it targets, how well it hits those targets, and some people just have the eye hand coordination to master those as if born jacked into a computer. I've been one of those myself in a few games(years ago..but sometimes I can get back into that state! just takes a little more bourbon now), you can't balance for us, you either ignore us as the aberration we are, or you remove personal skill from the equation totally. That's the problem, they don't want to remove personal skill, and they've already seen that there will be whiners if player skill matters more then working the skill trees. No fixing it if player skill counts..they want it to..so..what to do, what to do...


This.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users