Jump to content

IGN vids,why?


118 replies to this topic

#81 Sug

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 4,629 posts
  • LocationChicago

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:18 PM

View PostLackofCertainty, on 10 May 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

The only part of the IGN vids that bugged me, is that I just want to see a full game played out with dev commentary, not 2-3 minute clips with an interviewer who doesn't really know much about the game. Here's hoping we get some of that soon.


I was just thinking that this morning while going over the vids.

#82 William Petersen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:22 PM

View PostMr Styx, on 10 May 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

ppc is 800m erppc was 900 lrms 650??? lol
PPC is 540. ER PPC is 690. LRMs are 630.

#83 warner2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:34 PM

View PostPvt Dancer, on 10 May 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:


I like pots calling the kettle black... heh, fan boys. Organised competitive teams? Competitive league play? If they were real battletech fans, they would be happy there is a chance out there the game is going to be done right, finially. I have been waiting 25 years for a real battletech game, not some wanna-be Clan laser orgy.


The problem with the 'truily competitive' is that they do /not/ fix what they fine to be broken. They are exploiters to conceal the fact to give themselves an edge. The 'truily competitive' min-maxers are people who only try to break games, not make them better. They do not make reports saying 'hey, look at what I can do!'. The Devs get it from other people saying, 'Holy crap, can they do that?' Meanwhile the exploiters are having the time of their life till their exploit gets fixed. Then if the fix truily makes it so they can not have the most powerful thing in the game, the 'nerf hammer' on the forums comes out and they just leave... because they are not here to enjoy the game for the game itself, they are here for their own enjoyment at everyone else's expense.

I know people like this who I consider to be friends... we can't play games together because I am not a 'power player'.


I think that's a bit harsh for a few reasons.

I played in NBT, which was a puretech league :D We were an IS periphery unit, ILP and later MH. We fought Clan units using IS mechs and weapons. Our favourite mech was the Argus. So it certainly was no "Clan laser orgy".

By organised competitive teams I really just mean a unit of players who practice together, and play games against other units, in a league. It's organised since you're using tools like TeamSpeak to coordinate in-game, and it's competitive since the basic aim is to win, plus there are over-arching objectives like capturing planets. Clearly, MWO is set-up for this kind of meta-game right from the start. I didn't mean to come across as elitist at all, just emphasising that for someone to to truly understand how MWO plays out, just what is possible, just what works and what doesn't, what is balanced and isn't, what are the best mechs and the best weapons, will IMO require a group of dedicated players in a unit trying to beat another set of dedicated players in a unit. I mean isn't it common in pretty much all on-line games for the players themselves to push the game mechanics to the limit?

You've also just accused all competitive players of being exploiters which seems like a bit of a generalisation. I play to win, I enjoy trying to find the most effective load-outs, finding tactics to beat the opposition, and playing with a group of cohesive, like-minded players. In no way does any of that suggest I'm fine with exploits.

I should probably have stayed away from the phrase fan boy since that too is a bit of a generalisation, to say the least.

#84 Fear Radick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:36 PM

Does anybody else recall how nearly useless medium, and small lasers were, as well as machine guns and other assorted short range weapons in the previous couple of versions of mechwarrior, or is it just me?

It sounds like using these original ranges will only make more of the weapons useful again.Those smaller weapons will now be of use again because you will be forced to to close with your target at some point to engage.

It will also create more challenge for people who are equipped with long range weapons. You won't be able to hide out at 1000-1200m away and snipe with gauss and missiles till your ammo runs out. You will be forced to be more creative, and to move around more effectively as flanking will be a major threat at any moment.

You have to also take into effect that targeting will be mostly line of sight. If you have no scout, or he has been destroyed, you'll be forced to come into closer range in any case to engage targets with your long range weapons.

It all seems to make sense if you consider all factors and not just previous gameplay mechanics.

#85 Waelsleaht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 124 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 10 May 2012 - 01:54 PM

View PostMr Styx, on 10 May 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

if it seems im a troll then i am sorry i guess i expected more after 10-12 years

not how i visualised the ranges

Lets just say this.
Our technology level right now we can shoot **** with artilery that can easily go on a mech if we had one now for well out of visual range even on a perfectly smooth surface. The USN (wich im in) is 10 years away or less from Rail guns on their Ships. Guess how far they can shoot that? http://gizmodo.com/3...hes-at-5640-mph
" a combat-ready rail gun would be able to fire Mach 5 projectiles over 200 miles with pinpoint accuracy, hitting 5 meter targets."

If we fast forward to 3050 do you really see our technology being limited to even only 1000 meters? Its a game in a non existant world. By that time if humanity still exists and uses mechs I gurante we will have much farther engadgments. And close fighting (less than 5000 meters) would only take place due to not haveing orbital guns and in verry terrain sensetive areas like cities and canyons. Otherwise no fighting would occure over open terrain. If I want a sniper game id play a FPS not a mech sim. Is it kinda rediculous? Yes but at least its not as real as it should be reaching 200miles away with a spotter and nailing someone.

Edited by Waelsleaht, 10 May 2012 - 01:56 PM.


#86 Garth Erlam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,756 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • YouTube: Link
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:00 PM

Artillery right now can fire, what 7 miles away? Sure we could add that, and how fun would that be?

#87 PANZERBUNNY

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,080 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationToronto, Canada

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:01 PM

View PostWaelsleaht, on 10 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Lets just say this.
Our technology level right now we can shoot **** with artilery that can easily go on a mech if we had one now for well out of visual range even on a perfectly smooth surface. The USN (wich im in) is 10 years away or less from Rail guns on their Ships. Guess how far they can shoot that? http://gizmodo.com/3...hes-at-5640-mph
" a combat-ready rail gun would be able to fire Mach 5 projectiles over 200 miles with pinpoint accuracy, hitting 5 meter targets."

If we fast forward to 3050 do you really see our technology being limited to even only 1000 meters? Its a game in a non existant world. By that time if humanity still exists and uses mechs I gurante we will have much farther engadgments. And close fighting (less than 5000 meters) would only take place due to not haveing orbital guns and in verry terrain sensetive areas like cities and canyons. Otherwise no fighting would occure over open terrain. If I want a sniper game id play a FPS not a mech sim. Is it kinda rediculous? Yes but at least its not as real as it should be reaching 200miles away with a spotter and nailing someone.


Are you really trying to compare massive naval railguns to a railgun mounted on a tank or mech? Sorry, but the battelfields those different pieces of hardware are used on and how they are used are TOTALLY different.

That's like comparing the ranges of a Mortar on the front lines and Arty back in the rear or a trooper with a rifle in a bell tower with clear LOS and a trooper on the ground having to deal with smoke, incoming fire, moving around, disoriented. I could go on.

The battelfield and environment dictates the optima usefull range of a weapon, NOT how far it was designed to fire.

#88 Tyzh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 495 posts
  • LocationIronhold

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

View Postwarner__, on 10 May 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:


I played in NBT, which was a puretech league :D We were an IS periphery unit, ILP and later MH. We fought Clan units using IS mechs and weapons. Our favourite mech was the Argus. So it certainly was no "Clan laser orgy".



Not that I disagree with you or anything, I just think it would be fair to point out that the Argus and whatnot existed at a point in the timeline after the IS had played a good bit of "catch-up" with the Clans as far as tech, and the battlefield wasn't so one-sided anymore. It was a much different story when the invasion started, and when we are likely to see Clans. ;)

#89 Major Tom

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 504 posts
  • LocationIncomming!

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:08 PM

This is Mechwarrior, not (post)Modern Warfare.
The ranges are in here for game balance purposes not realism.

Realisticly mechs wouldn't be used at all, it is a horribly inefficient design for a combat vehicle. But we all like fighting in giant robots and getting up close and personal with the enemy, so that is what's in the game.

#90 IIIuminaughty

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,445 posts
  • LocationVirginia

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:09 PM

View PostMr Styx, on 10 May 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

wow im not really moaning im just trying to make a point the ranges seem a bit in your face which would lead to very little tactical play

no zoom either i noticed for accurate shots

at this rate track ir is 20 years away

starting to look like a console game tho more than a pc game


what do u mean?
Last time i check a Console is a computer. And some games are built for pc and consoles...last time i check this game was originally going to be made for the 360 and pc, just saying...
back to the point I don't know what a console game and a pc game is suppose to look like.

View PostGarth Erlam, on 10 May 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Artillery right now can fire, what 7 miles away? Sure we could add that, and how fun would that be?


Matter as well put sniper rifles on all the mechs also if we do this.

#91 Thomas Hogarth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 463 posts
  • LocationTharkad

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:10 PM

View PostMr Styx, on 10 May 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

ppc is 800m erppc was 900 lrms 650??? lol


I'm confused.

IS PPC = 540m
ERPPC = 690
Gauss = 660
LRM = 630

Not seeing a problem here.

#92 Evex

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 154 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:23 PM

Everyone calm down, and take in a deep breath. If you watch and pay attention to the videos its only a 4 vs 4 battle. The developers have said we would be getting 12 v 12 and possibly 24 v 24 battles. I would also guess that the battlefields scale depending how many mechs are on it. For instance a 12 v 12 map might be three 4 v 4 maps put together. In case of the ravine map you would probably get more hills and the such, before you come to the center of the map which holds the river. It would also guess that various planets might have the size of the battle determined by how important the planet is, so some planets might be 4 v 4 while others might be 24 v 24.

You also have to remember the point of role warfare that the devs have been emphasizing from day one. You have your offense who go an attack the enemy in the field. Your defense which keeps the enemy away from your base. You have your scouts which provide intelligence on the enemy. You have the commander who makes sure everything is running smoothly. If they didn't have a capture the base then the defense roll becomes pointless, and you could be playing hide and seek with the last enemy mech till the time limit runs out. I'm starting to think you people jump to conclusion with out looking at whats actually in front of you first.

#93 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 02:56 PM

Just to help people visualize the ranges IF PGI CHOOSES TO KEEP THE VALUES FROM TT...

Yet another Aegis-created worthless visual... enjoy!

Posted Image

#94 Pvt Dancer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 03:40 PM

View Postwarner__, on 10 May 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:


I think that's a bit harsh for a few reasons.

I played in NBT, which was a puretech league :P We were an IS periphery unit, ILP and later MH. We fought Clan units using IS mechs and weapons. Our favourite mech was the Argus. So it certainly was no "Clan laser orgy".

By organised competitive teams I really just mean a unit of players who practice together, and play games against other units, in a league. It's organised since you're using tools like TeamSpeak to coordinate in-game, and it's competitive since the basic aim is to win, plus there are over-arching objectives like capturing planets. Clearly, MWO is set-up for this kind of meta-game right from the start. I didn't mean to come across as elitist at all, just emphasising that for someone to to truly understand how MWO plays out, just what is possible, just what works and what doesn't, what is balanced and isn't, what are the best mechs and the best weapons, will IMO require a group of dedicated players in a unit trying to beat another set of dedicated players in a unit. I mean isn't it common in pretty much all on-line games for the players themselves to push the game mechanics to the limit?

You've also just accused all competitive players of being exploiters which seems like a bit of a generalisation. I play to win, I enjoy trying to find the most effective load-outs, finding tactics to beat the opposition, and playing with a group of cohesive, like-minded players. In no way does any of that suggest I'm fine with exploits.

I should probably have stayed away from the phrase fan boy since that too is a bit of a generalisation, to say the least.


I will point out that you started this on a thread fretting about ranges of LRMs that it might disrupt delicate competitive league play for competitive players. As you can see by the excellent graph done above (again, good job Aegis), if kept at TT based ranges, LRMs are fine.

I /will/ stick to my point about 'competitive players', or as others have called 'min-maxers' and 'power gamers'... it is a general term after all. I played CAL back in the day, I was an admin on FPS game servers, I have seen cheaters and exploits and heard all of the excuses. I have also beta tested /several/ MMOs and know what kind of feed back the Devs are looking for... honest feed back, even if it 'hurts' you to report it.

Sure, it is a generalization, not all of them are that bad. I don't know them personally, and I have stated I have friends like them. They /know/ who they are and they can find others like themselves and can tell the difference between 'pubbers' and 'leaguers'. But they also tend to lose sight of the game and instead focus on how to make themselves better and more 'competitive', specially in the beta phase.

Are they here to help beta test a game (when it reaches that point) to make the game better, or to learn the maps and mechs to make themselves better for when release comes around?

Priorities are priorities, so I have to really question the priorities of self-proclaimed 'competitive' players. After beta test is over... man, knock yourselves out with league play and all of that. /That/ is the time and the place for it. We can deal with the grand scope then of what battles have to be done to take what planets, when we learn more about that aspect of the game. I played Planetside and WWIIOnline and other 'grand tactic' games. I know fully well that a good organization of a fraction can do to help enhance game play. I have also seen the bad side of it... the petty dictators, blow hards, and back-room politicing (kinda reminds me of what the House Steiner military organization is suppose to be B) ).

#95 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:41 PM

View PostGarth Erlam, on 10 May 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Artillery right now can fire, what 7 miles away? Sure we could add that, and how fun would that be?


Just add a mech-mounted longtom sometime later.
Why?
To flush-out base-camping mechs.

Although some people might disagree, MW4 did add much variety to gameplay (ever though it was much underpowered) then the straight shoot-em. (Such as flamer/artilery beacon combo, narcing, the mentioned lobbing of longtoms, etc)

I commend PGI for adding the ability for scouts to provided LOS for LRMs launched out of LOS.

#96 Morang

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • LocationHeart of Darkness

Posted 10 May 2012 - 11:25 PM

Some questions after seeing those videos:

How the trees would be handled? Are they passable, destructible or what? In the "Assault Mech Breakdown" they seem unaffected by weapons of duelling Atlas and Catapult K. It seems that Atlas can pass through the trees without knocking them down. So are the trees just a sort of a decoration and undestructible, but non-protecting visual cover?

Will the destroyed mech just disappear as the Catapult did in the "Light Mech Breakdown" at 2:08? No satisfyingly smocking enemy wreckages on the battlefield, no explosions of cored out Fusion Engines? Or would it be added later?

Will the composition of both teams be known to each player from the start of the round? I think, players will be aware at least of the mechs of their own team. If so, it would be nice to have more current information about team composition and casualties, something like WoT-style team roster (though I'm not insisting that players should have full info about opposite team from the start of the round - but I think the mechs already spotted once by friendly units should appear on the enemy team roster too).

#97 StandingCow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,069 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 11 May 2012 - 12:54 AM

View PostMorang, on 10 May 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Some questions after seeing those videos:

How the trees would be handled? Are they passable, destructible or what? In the "Assault Mech Breakdown" they seem unaffected by weapons of duelling Atlas and Catapult K. It seems that Atlas can pass through the trees without knocking them down. So are the trees just a sort of a decoration and undestructible, but non-protecting visual cover?

Will the destroyed mech just disappear as the Catapult did in the "Light Mech Breakdown" at 2:08? No satisfyingly smocking enemy wreckages on the battlefield, no explosions of cored out Fusion Engines? Or would it be added later?

Will the composition of both teams be known to each player from the start of the round? I think, players will be aware at least of the mechs of their own team. If so, it would be nice to have more current information about team composition and casualties, something like WoT-style team roster (though I'm not insisting that players should have full info about opposite team from the start of the round - but I think the mechs already spotted once by friendly units should appear on the enemy team roster too).


How the trees were in the videos are apparently placeholders. Once the game is out they will be able to be blown up and I assume crushed when you walk through them.

The devs already commented on the mech disappearing, that is just for the early beta as well.

#98 warner2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 04:26 AM

View PostPvt Dancer, on 10 May 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:


I will point out that you started this on a thread fretting about ranges of LRMs that it might disrupt delicate competitive league play for competitive players. As you can see by the excellent graph done above (again, good job Aegis), if kept at TT based ranges, LRMs are fine.


No. There is no "league play" in MWO, the whole thing is set-up from the start to support organised 12 v 12 matches (e.g. merc on merc for border worlds) feeding into a planetary meta-game. The only thing I suggested is that you won't know how the game truly plays out, what tactics are viable, which weapoins are useless and so on, until those organised 12 v 12 matches start, during beta, where the game will be pushed to the limit by the players. The rest I'm afraid is in your imagination.

#99 warner2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts

Posted 11 May 2012 - 04:36 AM

View PostAegis Kleais™, on 10 May 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Just to help people visualize the ranges IF PGI CHOOSES TO KEEP THE VALUES FROM TT...

Yet another Aegis-created worthless visual... enjoy!


Actually really nice graph, downloaded for future reference :P

#100 Draco Harkins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • LocationIn the good part of Battletech, the tabletop.

Posted 11 May 2012 - 05:19 AM

View PostGarth Erlam, on 10 May 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Artillery right now can fire, what 7 miles away? Sure we could add that, and how fun would that be?


It would be fun if you needed a firing solution that would have to be sent from the scout mech or spotter, even today ordering an arty barrage is not done lightly (i would know im an ex veteran mortar team). How to ballance it? Simple, make it EXTREMELY HEAVY, so that he cant use close range weaponry to defend himself, that should make the pilot think twice before ocupying that slot... Or ten slots... Oh and also make the ammo heavy of course.

Why would a player want to use a mech with those specs???? Simple, choice. Its his choice, so if if the consequences are bad he pays the bill if not its a high risk, high reward tactic.





15 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 15 guests, 0 anonymous users