310 replies to this topic

[MrGray]

As i know first MWLL v 0.1 was based on TT values and it was rebalanced shortly, because there was no fun.

[AussieGiant]

It's a slippery slope to move away from the core rules of the game mechanics...this is one of them.

...all I know is that it ends in tears.

It's a pretty familiar equation; The original idea to move away from the core mechanics is sound...but the domino effect is never ending and ultimately a huge headache to manage with foreseen and unforeseen consequences.

Bottom line...leave it, as is.

Edited by AussieGiant, 20 May 2012 - 01:35 AM.

[Krivvan]

Volthorne, on 19 May 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

The computer doesn't miss. Nor does the hardware for the computer, as that IS the computer. The 'mech is just an extension of said computer.

Something tells me you aren't a programmer

In any case, of course the computer can miss. The computer cannot possibly account for every possible variable when firing a shot. Something as simple as a sudden shockwave could make a bullet veer slightly off course. And a computer cannot have infinite precision.

ADDENDUM: I'd also like to mention that computers today miss when doing things like tracking missiles and trying to intercept them.

AussieGiant, on 20 May 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

It's a slippery slope to move away from the core rules of the game mechanics...this is one of them.

At the same time, not much good comes from an absolutist attitude. The core rules of the game mechanics are also turn based so I guess they've already moved away from them.

Edited by Krivvan, 20 May 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[AussieGiant]

I agree about absolutist approaches Krivvan

I would just say that this core concept affects so many other parts of the game that's it's mind boggling what the consequences are.

If you do something like this and want to get it "right", then you need to be about 15 to 20 steps ahead in what other parts of the game-play it effects.

Edited by AussieGiant, 20 May 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[Victor Morson]

There's a ton of factors we CAN'T be aware of yet:

* If armor was doubled as a match-side modifier specifically for press games (so they could see a lot of shooting and not a lot of dying?)
* As mentioned, how much damage weapons do and if they've been changed; if an AC/20 can fire 3 times "faster" than Table Top then armor would be adjusted accordingly, for example
* If the armor is modified on a specific chassis, or we're talking about max values / default values
* What type of armor is being mounted and how that will impact things
* Etc, etc, etc.

Getting upset about this issue until we get our hands on it is a real lost cause.

EDIT: I'm not kidding about the press part, too. This is STANDARD PRACTICE in the industry; if you're letting the press get their hands on your unfinished game, you try to make it as easy to play as possible. If they die a bunch because they suck - MANY members of the gaming press suck, too - they are not likely to write a nice review. It's silly but true. I wouldn't doubt a 2x modifier was slapped on for just that reason.

Edited by Victor Morson, 20 May 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

Did I missed something? Did MWO went live and everything seen in videos is set in stone now?

[Alex Wolfe]

The realities of a fencing match (real-time, first-person, skill-based confrontation) are different from a chess match (turn-based, omniscient, strategy-based confrontation). Who knew? You mean when I move towards you first, you won't fall immediately? That's how it works in chess and has been for hundreds of years! Scandalous!

Quick, everybody hide before more values are changed to make a good game rather than sacrifice gameplay to attempt to recreate people's experiences with TT in 3D! Vote now for the first-person perspective, real-time chess!

Seriously now, Battletech and Mechwarrior are two different things, and have always been. When someone makes "Battletech online" then it'll likely be a turn-based strategy game, for now, attempts to stay as close as possible to the mechanics of the source material invariably ended up in disaster. MW3, despite the rosey glasses people look at it, had horrible gameplay and the designers needed to pull MFB out of thin air as a band-aid, because, guess what, turns out mechs-pawns from TT Battletech are too fragile and have too little ammo for an actual combat mission. Why? Because TT values are based around a few turns of combat, not a 15 minutes-long real-time engagement. They aren't made because "mechs should be like this", some people in FASA sat down and decided that for an average game length, weapon X should have Y damage and pack Z ammo per ton. If you take that balance to a different average game length... guess what, it falls apart. Then you end up with a Magical Field Base, restocking you ("resetting" the battle) in seconds. How's that for canon?

MW4, despite being spat on as an abomination against the Holy Canon of a Mechanically Completely Unrelated Game of a Different Game Type, managed to keep a robust gameplay and you can still get games of it going, more than a decade after it first showed up. Riddle me that.

Really, I like TT Warhammer 40k, but I when I play Dawn of War (perfectly recognizable, lovable rendition of WH40k universe) I don't demand that tanks can scare units off the map, or that infantry either shrug off the damage completely or die in one hit (it's enough that known units and weapon perform their function on the battlefield and the general power balance between unit types is kept). Why do people keep demanding this literal stuff for MWO, I will never know. Guess nostalgia and (with all the talks of "selling out" and contemptously uttered "mainstream" accusations)... hipster pride, of sorts?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 20 May 2012 - 02:46 AM.

[Slystone]

Sleeping Bear, on 19 May 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

OMG, there is a whole shitload of whiners out there. The game is not even out yet and already a bunch of you are whining that it is going to be broken and too much like MW4. I think that we need to wait for the game to be released, or at least out in beta, before we start trying to nitpick it to death. This sounds like a case of a child crying because he wants vanilla and was given chocolate ice cream. Guess what? The second that spoiled little brat takes a lick of that chocolate ice cream, he starts saying that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world.

We just need the game to drop, this is going to get worse in the next 2 weeks. If they Make MWO right to TT rules combat would last 1:45 seconds to 3 minutes. I guess that's what everyone complaining wants? Maybe they do.....

Edited by Slystone, 20 May 2012 - 02:32 AM.

[Bloody]

no problem with that, NOte the original game i played was Battle tech, Mechwarrior is a arcade version and so i fully expected a main stream arcade game.

[Urza Mechwalker]

Didnt read all replies. But to the ones that say this game will loose all base fanbase because they aremaking it not exaclty as table top and more as MW4. Well, I hate (in fact I love) to break your bubble, but MW4 has a MUCH larger fanbase than the table top game has nowadays!

That is same reason why ranges must be increased. COmptuer game is another level of abstraction where terrain and speed of reaction are difefrent therefore in need of several adjustments in oter areas to achieve a good gameplay.

That is also why no you cannto have shots that hit a mech all go into a hit table lcoation taht make a lase you fired at head hit the feet!

[FrostPaw]

I'm going to take the widely upopular stance that I don't know why the developers did this or if it is a permanent or temporary change. I'm also going to believe that they know a lot more about how the game plays with the changes they have made since, ya know....they can play it.

Turn based, random aiming dice rolling system vs realtime player aiming probably has a far bigger impact than people realise on "balance"

Respecting the tabletop probably doesn't involve screwing up the video game, just sayin...

Edited by FrostPaw, 20 May 2012 - 03:30 AM.

[king113]

its good to duble armor because this ver of game it will be slower than MW4 that why they Dubled Armor its just what iam think

[Steel Talon]

Sleeping Bear, on 19 May 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

OMG, there is a whole shitload of whiners out there. The game is not even out yet and already a bunch of you are whining that it is going to be broken and too much like MW4. I think that we need to wait for the game to be released, or at least out in beta, before we start trying to nitpick it to death. This sounds like a case of a child crying because he wants vanilla and was given chocolate ice cream. Guess what? The second that spoiled little brat takes a lick of that chocolate ice cream, he starts saying that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world.

True, Hopefully PGI will listen to players during beta, not like WG rarely listen to russian playerbase only

[Chazz Pryde]

Ok everyone...wow...let's all calm down for a second shall we ?

Let's look at the facts that we know. Virtually everybody here agrees that MW4 was a horrible horrible thing in the treatment of its armor values and many other things that made it a bad mess. Also we all agree that PGI so far seem to be on the right path in most things, that is moving away from the MW4 values, and for that they should be commended. It seems for me what the disagreement is about exactly how far away from the MW4 values (or conversely how close to the TT values) should we go.

And now we have two statements (sort of) that are heavily based on assumptions, speculations, conjectures and theories relying on what we have seen in screenshots and videos of a work in progress product that has many (few?) place holders in it as well as personal experience with different products. Those statements are as follows:

- There are those who claim that following the TT rules to the letter would not make a very engaging computer simulation as mechs will be destroyed rather quickly, negatively affecting the gameplay especially for light mechs.

- On the other hand there are those who say that doubling the armor values from the TT rules across the board will significantly widens the gap between the classes favoring the heavier ones and negatively affecting the gameplay -again- especially for light mechs.

Now both of these are valid concerns to make in my opinion. But again as they are based on assumptions I just think it is way too early to sound the bells of doom and gloom as some people are doing. I also dont agree that we should just shut up about it until more information is available. I think it is healthy to have a calm discussion about these things and present those concerns to PGI exactly as what they are "concerns" nothing more and nothing less. I think it is useful for them to know what we are thinking, so that they can incorporate some of our mindsets when they are testing their game and so that they will know what some people will be looking for once the beta finally rolls around.

As a side note that may or may not be useful in this discussion. Does anybody knows how Mechwarrior Living Legends treat their armor values? I know someone mentioned v 0.1 but I wonder how it is now. When I played it (v 0.4.9 I think) it seemed like kind of a mixed bag. Some lights took way too much punishment before going down while some heavies went down too easily. But that might have been entirely related to my skill (or lack thereof). So does anyone have any info on that?

[UncleKulikov]

AussieGiant, on 20 May 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

It's a pretty familiar equation; The original idea to move away from the core mechanics is sound...but the domino effect is never ending and ultimately a huge headache to manage with foreseen and unforeseen consequences.

The 'domino effect' is the slippery slope fallacy.

[color=#000000] A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[/color]^[1][color=#000000] The strength of such an argument depends on the [/color]warrant[color=#000000], i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with [/color]continuum fallacy[color=#000000], in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.[/color]

http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope

[Kudzu]

MrGray, on 20 May 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

As i know first MWLL v 0.1 was based on TT values and it was rebalanced shortly, because there was no fun.

Pinpoint accuracy has been, and continues to be, the reason why most of the MW games have been awful.

[UncleKulikov]

Kudzu, on 20 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Pinpoint accuracy has been, and continues to be, the reason why most of the MW games have been awful.

These differences between pencil & paper and digital are very significant even if it doesn't seem so at first. I mean, the Monday Night Combat devs had a huge amount of work re-tooling the balance for their game when just translating from a console controller to PC mouse and keyboard; the sniper class was basically reworked entirely from a semi-automatic rifle with 10-15 rounds in the magazine to a bolt action sniper because of the control differences. And MWO is making an even larger jump, from completely abstract RNG to direct user input. With lasers.

[Gozer]

Victor Morson, on 20 May 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

There's a ton of factors we CAN'T be aware of yet:

* If armor was doubled as a match-side modifier specifically for press games (so they could see a lot of shooting and not a lot of dying?)
* As mentioned, how much damage weapons do and if they've been changed; if an AC/20 can fire 3 times "faster" than Table Top then armor would be adjusted accordingly, for example
* If the armor is modified on a specific chassis, or we're talking about max values / default values
* What type of armor is being mounted and how that will impact things
* Etc, etc, etc.

Getting upset about this issue until we get our hands on it is a real lost cause.

EDIT: I'm not kidding about the press part, too. This is STANDARD PRACTICE in the industry; if you're letting the press get their hands on your unfinished game, you try to make it as easy to play as possible. If they die a bunch because they suck - MANY members of the gaming press suck, too - they are not likely to write a nice review. It's silly but true. I wouldn't doubt a 2x modifier was slapped on for just that reason.

This right here. Having been at E3 press demos and known some programers working on press demos I could TOTALLY see them doubling the armor and ammo just so the press could "have more fun" with the game. I.e. seeing more pretty explosions and such. I await beta before I go off on anything.

[Reggimus]

Gozer, on 20 May 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

I await beta before I go off on anything.

Everyone should read this, then read it again.. and once more.

[Karyudo ds]

Reggimus, on 20 May 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Everyone should read this, then read it again.. and once more.

Agreed. People like the judge the numbers even when they lack all of them off a board game when this game runs in real time. Double armor points might not really mean you have twice as much armor, what if they doubled weapon values too? Gives them more room to tweak and you something to compare everything too. None of this needs to appear Battletech by the numbers to play even similar or fun.

I certainly see little to no point to complaining about balance in a game we haven't played yet. Pretty hard to have a legitimate complaint when you have no idea what the rest of the game is.