310 replies to this topic

[Spider]

Pvt Dancer, on 19 May 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

... you nerf accuracy and keep recycle time standard,

I am going to make a point concerning this "point". I am basing it on my own WoTanks experience.

Nerf accuracy in a computer point and shoot game? If Im not hitting what i am aiming at due to some game "balancing mechanic" ... Me and JOE PUBLIC are going to be pissed ... and frustrated and take my gaming elsewhere.

It is an easy, and slightly opaque, thing to "nerf accuracy" in a boardgame. You simply require a d6 instead of a d4 or give the location a less hit slots. Regardless, the boardgame will "feel" pretty much the same.

However, in a visual game if I am aiming at a specific location and missing (and games test these things mercilessly) ... I am going to get upset and move on.

I feel nerfing accuracy would be a bad move in a tactical, twitch and skill-based aiming simulation.

In the computer game I can make myself "harder to hit" with a combination of range, team tactics, terrain masking, manuever, and speed.

In the boardgame I play the numbers. It may seen like semantics when it comes right down to it but I think it is more akin to comparing checkers and chess.

[goon]

ITT people whine about Mechwarrior not being manuver warfare.

Go play World of Tanks in a heavy Tank and get shot by artillery and die instantaneously, then tell me how much fun being made of glass is.

[Pvt Dancer]

Spider, on 19 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

I am going to make a point concerning this "point". I am basing it on my own WoTanks experience.

Nerf accuracy in a computer point and shoot game? If Im not hitting what i am aiming at due to some game "balancing mechanic" ... Me and JOE PUBLIC are going to be pissed ... and frustrated and take my gaming elsewhere.

It is an easy, and slightly opaque, thing to "nerf accuracy" in a boardgame. You simply require a d6 instead of a d4 or give the location a less hit slots. Regardless, the boardgame will "feel" pretty much the same.

However, in a visual game if I am aiming at a specific location and missing (and games test these things mercilessly) ... I am going to get upset and move on.

I feel nerfing accuracy would be a bad move in a tactical, twitch and skill-based aiming simulation.

In the computer game I can make myself "harder to hit" with a combination of range, team tactics, terrain masking, manuever, and speed.

In the boardgame I play the numbers. It may seen like semantics when it comes right down to it but I think it is more akin to comparing checkers and chess.

Tell me of a FPS game where accuracy was 100%, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Guess what, WoTs is making millions of dollors a month. The Call of Duty and the Battlefield series are probable pushing a billion each. Neither has 100% accuracy, even with a red dot or ACOG scope. Is Accuracy increased? Yes. Can you still miss? Yes. Do people still play, heck yes. You know what they are using? Aiming cones of damage. Fire at a wall...does every bullet hit in the same location, same hole? Heck no.

Your argument and point are weak.

[Joe Mallad]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 May 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Interesting but speculative topic... assuming the below blog is accurate... this is probably just testing.

http://mwomercs.com/...-blog-6-mechlab


" How is Armour going to be handled?
The way armour is being treated in MechWarrior Online is very similar to how it’s done in the tabletop game. That is, for every one ton of standard armour, the chassis is given 16 points of armor. These 16 points can be assigned to the various sections of a BattleMech. If the player purchases 8 tons of armor for their BattleMech, they can assign 128 armour points throughout
As per tabletop rules, each weight class of BattleMech has a maximum amount of armour it can sustain and this will be reflected in MechWarrior Online
One last thing we will be carrying over from tabletop is the ability to distribute armour between the front and back torso of a BattleMech as well"

And looking at the screenshot Helmer posted in his accurate, if a bit crass portrayal of the topics concern. The Firepower values are empty, as are the heat efficiency but you can see weapons and heatsinks assigned. While Azantia's math is accurate, it is based on a portrayal of what is an unfinished product. If this comes out in launch this way I would be astounded.

Ok well if this happens to be the case and say 1 ton of armor equates to 16 points of armor and i have 8 tons= 128 points of armor to apply to my mech... there still has to be limits to how many points you can put where. There should be no reason why a mechs head for example should have like 20 points of armor lol. (IF) they do armor allocation anything like TT... there is not a single mech in the battletech/WM universe that im aware of (and I may be wrong) that has more than 9 points of protection on its head, no matter its weight class. And going by what you have linked (thank you by the way for that link) Im now under the assumption that we will be allowed to allocate where we want our over all armor points to be on our mech? Is this how im reading it?

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 19 May 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[Spider]

Pvt Dancer, on 19 May 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Tell me of a FPS game where accuracy was 100%, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Your argument and point are weak.

Well .... you told me. The eloquence of your rebuttal has left me speechless.

Playing WoT as we speak ....

Edited by Spider, 19 May 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[Gauge]

Yoseful Mallad, on 19 May 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Ok well if this happens to be the case and say 1 ton of armor equates to 16 points of armor and i have 8 tons= 128 points of armor to apply to my mech... there still has to be limits to how many points you can put where. There should be no reason why a mechs head for example should have like 20 points of armor lol. (IF) they do armor allocation anything like TT... there is not a single mech in the battletech/WM universe that im aware of (and I may be wrong) that has more than 9 points of protection on its head, no matter its weight class. And going by what you have linked (thank you by the way for that link) Im now under the assumption that we will be allowed to allocate where we want our over all armor points to be on our mech? Is this how im reading it?

Armor is limited by location if you look at the info in the MechLab DevBlog.

http://mwomercs.com/...blog-6-mechlab/

See and read Figure 2, which has a few pictures of the Duck-O-Tron 2C with numbers all over it. So yes, there's still a cap on how much armor can be placed where. Of course, we're just seeing mock-ups, so how high those caps will be, and how true they are to the TT, are unknowns.

[goon]

Pvt Dancer, on 19 May 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Tell me of a FPS game where accuracy was 100%, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Guess what, WoTs is making millions of dollors a month. The Call of Duty and the Battlefield series are probable pushing a billion each. Neither has 100% accuracy, even with a red dot or ACOG scope. Is Accuracy increased? Yes. Can you still miss? Yes. Do people still play, heck yes. You know what they are using? Aiming cones of damage. Fire at a wall...does every bullet hit in the same location, same hole? Heck no.

Your argument and point are weak.

oh boy NOW you've gone and done it.

Sir, World of Diceroll's is not fun, after awhile, you realise that 75% of the game is random values and the developers have done their damdest not to balance the game but to make sure NO ONE is good at it, and if you are, you never win. you're essentially trying to beat someone at a Rulet Wheel, and paying Wargaming makes spinning it less difficult.

and really once Plannetside 2 and of course MWO come out people will abandon the game in DROVES, the only reason people are playing it now is because there's nowhere else to go.

So no, I do not want to play a game where based on some random value I have no control over my AC/20 takes a 50 degree turn out the front of my gun and hits a mountan and then I die for missing that shot.

Popularity is not a mesure of quality, sir.

[Joe Mallad]

gauge, on 19 May 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Armor is limited by location if you look at the info in the MechLab DevBlog.

http://mwomercs.com/...blog-6-mechlab/

See and read Figure 2, which has a few pictures of the Duck-O-Tron 2C with numbers all over it. So yes, there's still a cap on how much armor can be placed where. Of course, we're just seeing mock-ups, so how high those caps will be, and how true they are to the TT, are unknowns.

Thank you for the help. This makes me feel better about how Armor is going to work and how its applied to a mech.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 20 May 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[Sassori]

goon, on 19 May 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

oh boy NOW you've gone and done it.

Sir, World of Diceroll's is not fun, after awhile, you realise that 75% of the game is random values and the developers have done their damdest not to balance the game but to make sure NO ONE is good at it, and if you are, you never win. you're essentially trying to beat someone at a Rulet Wheel, and paying Wargaming makes spinning it less difficult.

and really once Plannetside 2 and of course MWO come out people will abandon the game in DROVES, the only reason people are playing it now is because there's nowhere else to go.

So no, I do not want to play a game where based on some random value I have no control over my AC/20 takes a 50 degree turn out the front of my gun and hits a mountan and then I die for missing that shot.

Popularity is not a mesure of quality, sir.

Cuz no sim game ever has any amount of variability to it. In EVE Online, you never miss, you never don't do full damage, never have critical hits, and never have any amount of randomization.

There's nothing wrong with the targeting reticule being large and thus spreading shots. You still have skill, you have the skill of placing that reticule where it lands more shots, but you don't get pinpoint accuracy. Pin point accuracy throws out balance on an immense level because the game wasn't designed around it.

Therefor it is infinitely easier (and more true to theme) to not have pin point targeting and everything else falls in line without having to adjust things crazily.

[Pvt Dancer]

Spider, on 19 May 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Well .... you told me. The eloquence of your rebuttal has left me speechless.

Playing WoT as we speak ....

I am just saying that there is no such thing as 100% accuracy in a FPS. One does not exsist, and if it did, it is not anywhere as successful as the current business models out there.

The big difference between a game like WoTs and CoD or MWO is that there are no glancing shots or hits that do no damage. If MWO wanted to go a more "realistic" route, they could have 'glancing' hits that do no damage because of sloped armor or a bad angle. Heck, I would be happer with that solution than to double armor, ammo, and recycle rate. They still can have an 'firing cone' that is fairly accurate then and add on a randomizer that says this shot misses. You could do partial damage, but at that point I would rather have full damage or no damage.

[Sassori]

I could get behind that too. If instead of a flat miss armor just completely compensated for that damage and it splashed off.

[Spider]

Pvt Dancer, on 19 May 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

they could have 'glancing' hits that do no damage because of sloped armor or a bad angle.

I like that. WoT does that. Very frustrating when it happens but gives that realistic feel for sure.

Im guessing it is all being considered as the Beta progresses.

Edited by Spider, 19 May 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Volthorne]

Pvt Dancer, on 19 May 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Tell me of a FPS game where accuracy was 100%, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

Uh... the game where a pilot of a giant battlemech can aim his weapons with the help of a helmet that projects his mental actions as those of his battlemech's? Because, you know, knowing exactly where you're pointing your weapon and then having your weapon waver is cool, after having spent billions of dollars inventing the helmet that allows your battlemech to carry out the actions that you mentally conjure for it?

Edited by Volthorne, 19 May 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Shootanoob]

Ok, guys, maybe I have missed something, but at least I was up until now unable to play the game and make my thoughts about the look and feel out of my cockpit view.

So I can't say much about how the game is played - and everyone else with as much live MWO experience than me can do just the same.

For the rest, doubled or not armor values, I'd like to raise the question: Do we know all needed details to even come close to theorycraft on this item? Or might it be that we do imagine much more parts of our maths than we know? And even if we know, did anyone of our friends expecting the end of the world maybe heared that balancing a pvp-mmo game is a continous process which will start early before beta testing and end soon after the last server was closed down?

The thing which matters from my perspective is, that every Mech will fit in some usefull slot on the battlefield - and if my light scout directing the rockets of my lancemates on the enemy would be cooked by one or one-and-a-half ppc-hit, well, I couldn't care less. Why? Because my defense is not speed, my defense is not to be seen - and all that speed does is, helping me to rush from cover to cover. If on the other hand two big guys line up against each other, pounding themselves with ppcs and acs and what else , well, I guess no one will be sad about an epic firefight lasting rather 30 seconds than only ten, right?

[Sassori]

Volthorne, on 19 May 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Uh... the game where a pilot of a giant battlemech can aim his weapons with the help of a helmet that projects his mental actions as those of his battlemech's? Because, you know, knowing exactly where you're pointing your weapon and then having your weapon waver is cool, after having spent billions of dollars inventing the helmet that allows your battlemech to carry out the actions that you mentally conjure for it?

Uh the neural helmet only accesses your sense of balance to help your mech stay upright. It has zero bearing on targeting at all. Sorry.

[Pvt Dancer]

Volthorne, on 19 May 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Uh... the game where a pilot of a giant battlemech can aim his weapons with the help of a helmet that projects his mental actions as those of his battlemech's? Because, you know, knowing exactly where you're pointing your weapon and then having your weapon waver is cool, after having spent billions of dollars inventing the helmet that allows your battlemech to carry out the actions that you mentally conjure for it?

Christopher Dayson, on 19 May 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Uh the neural helmet only accesses your sense of balance to help your mech stay upright. It has zero bearing on targeting at all. Sorry.

Yup... and if this was true, how come the mech misses 30-40% of the time? I would want my money back.

[Volthorne]

Christopher Dayson, on 19 May 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Uh the neural helmet only accesses your sense of balance to help your mech stay upright. It has zero bearing on targeting at all. Sorry.

Whoops, sorry. I must have been thinking about what Neurohelms SHOULD be doing.

To compensate I'm going to offer the reasoning that computers don't have issues with aiming. You tell them to aim at something and they don't miss. Why? Because computers have 100% more control over their mechanical components than humans have over their appendages. Computers do not feel nervous, or scared. Nor can they get "jittery". If anything is to blame, it is the pilot that missed, not the 'mech or computer.

That being said, Targeting Computers, when implemented, should only give you a box to aim at that leads the target enough to hit the area you want to hit.

[Spider]

BigPuma, on 19 May 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

The thing which matters from my perspective is, that every Mech will fit in some usefull slot on the battlefield -

Sometimes you will be the hammer, sometimes the anvil .... sometimes the hammered. :-)

That makes for a good game in my book.

[Sassori]

Volthorne, on 19 May 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Whoops, sorry. I must have been thinking about what Neurohelms SHOULD be doing.

To compensate I'm going to offer the reasoning that computers don't have issues with aiming. You tell them to aim at something and they don't miss. Why? Because computers have 100% more control over their mechanical components than humans have over their appendages. Computers do not feel nervous, or scared. Nor can they get "jittery". If anything is to blame, it is the pilot that missed, not the 'mech or computer.

That being said, Targeting Computers, when implemented, should only give you a box to aim at that leads the target enough to hit the area you want to hit.

Sure. But computer tech is sucky in BT on the whole, also, computers tend to not work well in extreme heat... which there is a LOT of in a BattleMech. All that spiking heat would be hell on the solder. Targeting computers in BattleTech aren't generally as good as a computer that can run this game will be. Also, only Clan had Targeting Computers at the start so having a wider area of fire makes perfect sense. These things aren't supposed to be pin point accurate.

[Volthorne]

Christopher Dayson, on 19 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

These things aren't supposed to be pin point accurate.

Computers don't miss. Pilots do. The only way to simulate that would be through reticule sway. And I'm sure no one wants that.

Edited by Volthorne, 19 May 2012 - 03:41 PM.