200 replies to this topic

[Noth]

Rejarial Galatan, on 14 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Fine, time to apply the last decent MW game I played before MWO: MW2 GBL. Even in THAT game, a gauss rifle is a crippling blow to a jenner, if not out right fatal. Why not have the same values of armor/dmg here as there?

Because that game was not balanced at all. None of the other MW games were actually balanced for pvp. Multiplayer in those typically broke down into, bring biggest mech with jump jets, throw on the best lasers you could and poptart snipe over hills.

Draco Argentum, on 14 November 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

Assaults vs Lights isn't really the topic guys.




Right, its a Skinner Box. The devs designed it to manipulate some basic psychology so people would get hooked and hopefully spend cash. I intentionally left this out of the OP. But it is very obvious to me that the mech XP system was designed for monetisation first and gameplay second.

Hate to tell you, all games that have a publisher and are to make money for the publisher and dev are designed for monetisation. About the only ones that aren't are the kickstarter ones that don't care about money and are just doing it for teh love of the game, see the Wasteland remake.

[HumanDuracell]

Noth, on 14 November 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Because that game was not balanced at all. None of the other MW games were actually balanced for pvp. Multiplayer in those typically broke down into, bring biggest mech with jump jets, throw on the best lasers you could and poptart snipe over hills.

Don't forget to mention about disabling the heat management option to allow ridiculously overpowered builds that pretty much break the game.

Edited by Edanomel, 14 November 2012 - 02:20 AM.

[Lonestar1771]

Noth, on 14 November 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

Okay, I get what you have been saying about Mech XP, but I do find it disconcerting that we know really next to nothing about what the pilot mods will be. We haven't heard a peep about it in a very long time. With the specific role trees we kinda had an idea of what we were gonna get. It seems all the focus is on matchmaking and the in game store. This game has the bait but no hook.

[Bucser]

PyroDante, on 01 November 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

The big problem from a design standpoint is that a single variant may be used for multiple types of loadouts, and therefor would need multiple "specs" (this also goes into the fact that we should be able to save loadouts, but I digress). I recommend XP go into weapons and equipment systems, not chassis.

I would love to see a multi tiered weapons and modules xp system. The more you use the weapons, the better heat dissipation can become, you get a bit better range for ballistics by leveling it up, better lock up times for missiles, while you can also use the mech XP to flush into the chassis and for the engine you could achieve higher speeds for instance for HS a bit better heat dissipation values etc. Not too much to create unfair advantage but to give something to those who specialise in one area. And if you love to stick to the same mech and same weaponry still gives you something to keep going.

[Khobai]

Quote

Right, its a Skinner Box. The devs designed it to manipulate some basic psychology so people would get hooked and hopefully spend cash

Its not really a skinner box because once you max out the skills theres no reason to continue the same behavior. Plus you gain XP consistently instead of at a random interval. WoW is a better example of a game that's a skinner box because of the loot randomization.

When Skinner did his experiments he found that if the rats got food whenever they pushed the lever, they would only push the lever when they needed food. But if the rats got food at a very low random interval when they pushed the lever, they would push the lever almost non-stop. Wow uses this principle with random loot drops and gets you to repeat the same dungeons over and over. Its also how casinos prey on people with electronic slot machines.

MWO is based more around the idea that they want the average person to spend X amount of money one time, say $60... where WoW is based around operant conditioning and altering peoples behavior so that they pay their $15 every single month for as long as the game exists. Theres a huge difference.

Edited by Khobai, 14 November 2012 - 05:37 AM.

[Darkblood]

Telthalion, on 01 November 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Also agreed. We need some actual choices (exclusive ones), not just "pick which ones you want first".

And, as mentioned above, some sort of tangible benefit for specializing into a specific role at the expense of others.

Agreed

I don't mind having to buy three variants in order to advance. I think that adds to the game, makes you feel you're becoming an chasis speciallist. But this thing of having to buy every single efficiency is not interesting. It would be nice to have different trees, which you had to choose.

It could be something along the lines of: the brawler (concentrating on movement, turning, arm agility), scout (movement, detection), sniper (targeting, convergence, stability), etc...

You could even have some general ones (mostly dealing with heat, modules, etc), but there should be a cap o number of efficiencies so you would have to choose (can't just pick them all).

Of course there's the point of changing your mind: you can always sell a Mech that didn't work for you, it would be necessary to give a way to roll back a eff. tree if latter you found out you didn't like the result.

[Stymir]

the XP is not for the player its for the mech, this isnt COD or some other FPS this is supposed to be a simulator. the XP is supposed to reflect the pilot getting to know the mech and beting able to tweak it just right. XP to unlock variants would be ridiculous. if you think that it is P2W then you are setting it up even worse. i am also making the assumption that as to got higher level then you would get better mechs that makes the divide ever bigger between the new guy and someone who plays alot. also having "player Levels" just sounds like you want to play rainbow six or something similar player levels have no place in a simulator

[Sam Slade]

Darkblood, on 14 November 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Of course there's the point of changing your mind: you can always sell a Mech that didn't work for you, it would be necessary to give a way to roll back a eff. tree if latter you found out you didn't like the result.

Changing your mind... changing your mind... repeat it!

This is why we don't have horrible, stuck-in-a-rut, skill trees tying us to one play style. I've been agonizing over which Dragon variant I want to take to Mastery level because I really enjoy the way one configuration plays but then, ******, I've discovered another that seems to be even better for my play style.

Explore your Mech lab... try different builds... once you have the measure of one test it against another. These are actually really fun things to do.

P.S.: Decided to just keep both and buy another Mech Bay.

[BlackSquirrel]

Bump

[MustrumRidcully]

Rejarial Galatan, on 14 November 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

TT states my shot would have sheared the arm clean off him as the limb has less armor/structure combined than the output of the shots, especially at full burn laser time in this game.

You didn't get a clean shot in. That's one error you make here - the table top only describes an abstraction of what happens over 10 seconds. But you actually can fire your AC20 every 4 seconds in MW:O. So why should a weapon that can, with a clean attack run over 10 seconds, can take off a Jenner's arm, suddenly do it in 4 seconds rather than 10?


And moreover - would this actually be good gameplay? Testing seemed to indicate it didn't.

It'snot that the game balance is perfect yet. There are many issues. But that you are not able to take off a Jenner's arm with a single AC20 hit is not one of the problems.

And, the problems of this thread are Mech XP and how the mech xp system is uninteresting.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 November 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Undead Bane]

bobthebomb, on 12 November 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

i'd like something like that.

• one choice for each level
  
• asymmetric bonus : each variant get different option
  
• underplayed chassis could be improved here (same for useless variant)
  
• re-spe with mc or grind a new mech for different build (maybe too hard)

i hope this image appear

Pretty much this or something alike. Meaning, that the skill trees should be somehow related to the actual chasis and variant you are leveling. You are mastering this exact mech after all, so you should learn, how to fine tune exactly it.

Edited by Undead Bane, 14 November 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

fact is Twibs, Gauss and AC20 are the 2 heaviest single shot ballistic weapons in the game, they need to either reduce stats back to 100% on armor and structure or up the damage component on these two to make them more on par with what BattleTech and Mechwarrior have ALWAYS been.

[Rokuzachi]

#3 for me. Love the Dragon 1C. Hate hate hate the 1N and 5N, and exp conversion rates are not good enough to warrant me grinding the XP on the 1C and converting it to GXP to use on the other variants.

I'd rather the unlocks cost x2 or x3 XP and maybe some cbills but not have to play other variants.

[Noth]

Rejarial Galatan, on 14 November 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

fact is Twibs, Gauss and AC20 are the 2 heaviest single shot ballistic weapons in the game, they need to either reduce stats back to 100% on armor and structure or up the damage component on these two to make them more on par with what BattleTech and Mechwarrior have ALWAYS been.

They still are the single heaviest hitting ballistics in the game and can wreck mechs very fast. It just takes more than one shot and that is a good thing from a gameplay perspective. If I wanted to play a game where I could be one shotted really easily I'd go play generic shooter number 23. Being able to one shot people just because you have a big gun doesn't add to tactical gameplay, it takes away from it because those weapons become the best and that's all people will run. You need to look no further than what happened with LRMs. They were the best easiest weapons and people used them everywhere, now they aren't and you see a nice mix. GR is the same thing. GR outclasses so many other weapons that players will make huge sacrifices to run them. This is not balanced it is not tactical it pretty much literally becomes who ever brings the biggest gun wins which is a horrid design for this game.

I'll say this again, This is not TT (where turns are abstractions of 10 seconds and you can kill a mech with two good AC20 shots in 10 seconds in this game), nor is it past mechwarrior games which had pathetic balance in pvp.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Noth, you will never convince me that the current settings are ideal. To me, they are just a quiet way of saying: I want to live longer and not have to think faster in a fight.

[Noth]

Rejarial Galatan, on 14 November 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

Noth, you will never convince me that the current settings are ideal. To me, they are just a quiet way of saying: I want to live longer and not have to think faster in a fight.

So you aren't here for discussion and listen to the whys and hows things are being made to understand the design and goal of the game. You are just hear to call it all wrong? That is not helpful at all and makes me wonder why you are so insistent on something that will not happen. They tested what you want. It didn't work. Accept it and move on because it is not changing.

BTW I don't play lights so it has nothing to do with not having to think faster in lights (which they still have to do).

Edited by Noth, 14 November 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Then accept the fact that this is putting the timeline, and every single story arc this game CLAIMS to follow or intending to follow in serious risk of NOT following HOW it is WRITTEN TO GO. Can you accept that? This effectively puts the boots of ALL the Clans on your pathetic Innersphere throats.

[Noth]

Rejarial Galatan, on 14 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Then accept the fact that this is putting the timeline, and every single story arc this game CLAIMS to follow or intending to follow in serious risk of NOT following HOW it is WRITTEN TO GO. Can you accept that? This effectively puts the boots of ALL the Clans on your pathetic Innersphere throats.

Following story is different than changing how gameplay plays. They have flat out said that it would follow the story of the BT universe. They have specific planets that cannot be invaded and taken over. Only border planets are able to be taken over and exchange hands. Factions will not be player run for a long time and maybe even never. For major events, while we may be able to participate, it's unlikely we'd be able to change the outcomes. If they didn't have those fail safes in place and say that they would follow the story, then I'd be fine with it.

[Rejarial Galatan]

You are changing the way the game is meant to be played by not putting in a real decent radar. It is that simple. Cannot even tell you the number of times I took a small lance of Atlases and just walked at 50% throttle into the base, and took it with out so much as a whimper from my enemy. Radar, if employed as it is designed, would stop that from happening and make it a real challenge to make an ingress into your base.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 14 November 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[Noth]

Rejarial Galatan, on 14 November 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

You are changing the way the game is meant to be played by not putting in a real decent radar. It is that simple. Cannot even tell you the number of times I took a small lance of Atlases and just walked at 50% throttle into the base, and took it with out so much as a whimper from my enemy. Radar, if employed as it is designed, would stop that from happening and make it a real challenge to make an ingress into your base.

Basic situational awareness stops that as well. I can't cound how many times I've stopped lights and other mechs from doing what you say you do all the time just by panning around and catching a glimpse of them. It just takes an active effort which is good for game design. Again, gameplay choices are made for reasons, just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong or bad.