310 replies to this topic

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Pvt Dancer, on 21 May 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Not true. I had shots miss all the time in the 2 years I played and beta tested it.

Sorry, I thought you meant 'game balancing accuracy gimmickery'. Of course you could miss..lol. There was no target lock auto hit. The accuracy was 100% true to the equipment involved and not adjusted for balance. If you sincerely are asking about a 100% accuracy game, then you're essentially positing a strawman argument.

[Reggimus]

Has anyone considered that 1 point of armour has a value of 2, this would make it easier for applying X.5 damage from something does DoT.

[Vexgrave Lars]

Belisarius†, on 21 May 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Right, so this whole thing is just speculation? Nobody wants to say and I'm damned if I'm digging through 14 pages.

Said it was speculation based on pre-public beta in every post I made... followed by ... if it is what we see at launch that its crap. Not deal breaking crap, but certainly changes the model for us a lot.

[TheVirus]

What's with the "I don't actually want to hit what I fire at" guys? It's the stupidest thing I've seen so far (and that's saying something here).

If I fire my weapons at someones CT and it doesn't hit CT, *** is the point of aiming?!

I like how you say straight fire is "too easy". I'm sure you were the best player around on your single player campaigns, but on the Internet people don't like missing carefully aimed shots because you think doing so makes the game more realistic to your books or whatever you're attempting to copare it to.

[Kargush]

AimlessSpectre, on 21 May 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

*snip*the fact that a light will always lose to a heavy when the scenario is based purely on damage and armor alone

As it should be.

You wouldn't put a Panzer II up against a KVI, nor would you pit a minesweeper against a frigate.

[Kudzu]

TheVirus, on 22 May 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

What's with the "I don't actually want to hit what I fire at" guys? It's the stupidest thing I've seen so far (and that's saying something here).

If I fire my weapons at someones CT and it doesn't hit CT, *** is the point of aiming?!

I like how you say straight fire is "too easy". I'm sure you were the best player around on your single player campaigns, but on the Internet people don't like missing carefully aimed shots because you think doing so makes the game more realistic to your books or whatever you're attempting to copare it to.

Some of us want the game to actually resemble Battletech rather than a point and click Zynga game. Not having pinpoint accuracy is a part of BT, much like force powers are a part of being a Jedi or warp drives are a part of Star Trek.

Quick edit:
You would be amazed at how many of the problems past MW games had that would disappear once you remove pinpoint accuracy.

Edited by Kudzu, 22 May 2012 - 06:56 AM.

[neodym]

I like how people from Piranha dont respond in this thread so theres this behemoth of a thread with 15 pages debating very important thing and nobody from Piranha gives a duck

like whole thing could be solved with few words

Edited by neodym, 22 May 2012 - 07:19 AM.

[Vexgrave Lars]

neodym, on 22 May 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

I like how people from Piranha dont respond in this thread so theres this behemoth of a thread with 15 pages debating very important thing and nobody from Piranha gives a duck

Theyre busy, have to do meetings and such.. have patience. they have to catch up for Monday Off

[Spider]

neodym, on 22 May 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

I like how people from Piranha dont respond in this thread so theres this behemoth of a thread with 15 pages debating very important thing and nobody from Piranha gives a duck

like whole thing could be solved with few words

??? And what would they answer exactly at this stage in developement? And how would that solve anything?

Here let me answer for them:

THIS IS ME "SPIDER" (also not my real name) PRETENDING TO ANSWER YOUR POST (for the record)

===============================

Dear Forumite:

"We appreciate your input and ideas. However at this early stage in game testing and development we cannot comment on what the game will be like at release. BECAUSE WE DONT KNOW YET....We are still testing it. Once again .... it is pre-beta. We were happy to release a gameplay video for your enjoyment. We are, however, extremely regretful of the depression, anger and sorrow it seems to have caused some of you.

While we understand your pent up "Christmas morning" frustration and "I want it now" interest in our product .... We suggest a more realistic approach in dealing with your feelings and expectations. The game is in PRE BETA.

Adopt a "wait and see" approach.

Believe it or not, we actually have an interest in producing a product that will make you happy and make us money. I know, I know ... it sounds silly and is hard to believe ... but its true!

We will be spending a lot of our time improving "said game" and not putting out forum fires. (If i was to "put out" a forum fire it would be in the "Which Mech would you marry" thread or maybe the "Your Mom is a Locust Pilot" flame)

And for the few Henny Pennys out there .... the sky is not falling.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THIS HAS BEEN A FAKE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POST
THIS HAS BEEN A FAKE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POST
THIS HAS BEEN A FAKE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POST
THIS HAS BEEN A FAKE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POST
THIS HAS BEEN A FAKE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE POST

Edited by Spider, 22 May 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[veretax]

I dunno if it's been said, but is it possible the difference is related to 'internal' structure being counted along WITH the armor? In table top they are somewhat distinct, but it's conceivable that they aren't measuring the Internal structure separately in the Mech Lab.

[MaddMaxx]

Kudzu, on 21 May 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Bring me your mouth breathers, your twitch junkies, your boaters, your poptarts... maybe you'll accidentally bring someone worthwhile into the community.

Hey, don't forget about the Knuckle Draggers. We can't discriminate...

P.S. Can we get a Pic showing these Armor values please. Perhaps they need to be compared to other, older, videos to see if they have stayed the same, or been changed, perhaps for TESTING reasons...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 22 May 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Spider]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

This keeps going from bad to worse.

You missed your era and your calling Az.

Edited by Spider, 22 May 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[TheVirus]

Kudzu, on 22 May 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Some of us want the game to actually resemble Battletech rather than a point and click Zynga game. Not having pinpoint accuracy is a part of BT, much like force powers are a part of being a Jedi or warp drives are a part of Star Trek.

If you want a game of luck stick to your dice rolling, decent gamers want to hit what they fire at.

Imagine you're 1 vs 1 some guy to win a match for your team, both crit and looking for a kill shot. You fire dead CT but you miss (because of your silly lucky hits idea), he fires seconds later and kills you. Can you imagine how frustrating that would be?

It turns a game of skill into pure luck. It's plain stupidity.

Edited by TheVirus, 22 May 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[Azantia]

Spider, on 22 May 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

You missed your era and your calling Az.

Ill keep that in mind thanks, missed opportunities are a shame.

I do see however that you found your calling as the [REDACTED], unfortunately your lot are a dime a dozen on the internet. Where is the creativity? I expect more when someone attempts personal insults. If you want to distinguish yourself you are going to have to try again.

Ill be waiting. Please hurry.

[Volthorne]

Azantia, on 22 May 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Ill keep that in mind thanks, missed opportunities are a shame.

I do see however that you found your calling as the [REDACTED], unfortunately your lot are a dime a dozen on the internet. Where is the creativity? I expect more when someone attempts personal insults. If you want to distinguish yourself you are going to have to try again.

Ill be waiting. Please hurry.

That was actually one of the more creative insults I've seen. Spider insulting you, I mean.

Edited by Helmer, 22 May 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[palebear]

neodym, on 22 May 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

<snip>and nobody from Piranha gives a duck<snip>

I could not disagree more with the comment I've quoted.
Unlike the vast majority of game forums, the devs DO read our posts, DO respond and DO take the lore seriously.

I would, at this time of Closed Beta invites, probably not go painting with too-wide a brush just because a particularly ridiculous idea has remained without comment.

[saphon kell]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

A very sad turn of events. Score one for the Mech Assault / mainstream gaming crowd. So many things right PGI, but a very solid core concept ruined.

Welcome back to the days of everyone load up a Heavy/Assault.

/Disappointed.


Here was my response to the original thread, as Yousful refers to :

If they increase armor in any-way shape or form, it will break the balance of the weapons that have been established and that means it will be just like Mechwarrior 4, which means "more arcade-like", which is C-R-A-P.

We (the 1st Blackburn's Raiders) have been playing Mektek's free release of mechwarrior 4, with mech variants based on TRO/tabletop values for armor and speed (obviously cant change weapon systems) and even though the internal armor is still a little higher than it needs to be, it makes the game much much more fun, and more tactical. It also INCREASES the effectiveness of speed and mobility and makes heavy and assault mechs much more vulnerable in general.

If they change the armor values to an attempt to "help" those pilots who do things like stand still, or rush into enemy fire, then my prediction is they will lose a high percentage of the most dedicated fan base within a matter of months. (Someone asked me why : Because they will realize it is mechwarrior 4 all-over again. We dont want another horrible mutation like Mechwarrior 4.) Without the dedicated fan base, its only a matter of time before this "new influx" of community players finds the "next new shiny" game to play.

Its important that the new community players see and play the game that the old time players fell in love with. Not some altered, rainbow / arcade like mutation of the original. There is NOTHING wrong with the original values. Yes, you take a few good hits, you are down to internals. Welcome to life as a Mechwarrior.

If I have to hit a light or medium mech 5 to 6 times with a PPC to penetrate their extrernal armor, you wont see me playing for long.

Keep in mind a stock atlas (which is one of the most heavily armored mechs for the timeframe) can take 4.7 PPC blasts to the Center Torso before they go internal. it takes 8 PPC blasts in the CT to take it down completely (47 CT Armor, 31 Internal = 78). I expect that when a Jenner takes a PPC blast ANYWHERE, its down to internals, or damned close to it. Speed is its defense, not armor.

(Update : If the Armor Values are DOUBLED, It will take 16 PPC blasts (OR 8 AC/20 rounds!!!!!!) to the center torso to kill an Atlas or any other 100 Ton mech, as they can have the same armor values. Think of it this way : 11 Clan ER PPC Blasts. That means a Masakari Prime could Alpha Strike the Atlas TWICE in the CT and it will still be running around. That is completely F'ing stupid to anyone who has any knowledge of the battletech universe, Atlas, or no Atlas.
For you medium laser boaters out there, it will take you 32 Medium Laser hits to kill an Atlas.)

The Atlas is approximately 285% heavier than the Jenner

so by proxy of weight alone (Which in the Btech universe tends to loosely base a chassis' overall combat endurance on)
the Jenner should take approximately 2.8 PPC blasts (fully armored) before it goes down. Or in game terms, should have somewhere close to the range of 28 total armor (external and internal).

(UPDATE : Using the same standard as above : the Jenner would have 56 total armor/internal points in the CT, which means it could ALMOST (4 points away) survive an Alpha Strike from a Masakari Prime, and could survive an Alpha Strike and a Half from an Awesome. Likewise it Could survive 2 AC/20 hits to the CT, something most 50 to 60 ton mechs cant accomplish in Lore/TT.)

Lets look at the maximum armor allowance for a 35 ton mech

119 external armor or 7.5 tons.
9 Max H
22 max CT
16 Max RT/LT/RL/LL
12 Max RA/LA

keep in mind you have to split youre CT/RT/LT armor into front and rear. so, here is my conclusion

Shocker :
you can have 17 center torso armor, 5 rear, and *GASP* added with the internal armor (11) you get 28.

you are welcome
- Az

too many pages to read them all so, i make this my words
i dont want another MW4

Edited by saphon kell, 22 May 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Bryan Ekman]

While I appreciate the passion here, the intensity needs to be turned down a bit.

From Day 1 our goal was to take the TT rules and create a game that reflects the spirit of those rules. Since so many of the TT rules are designed to work around simulating skill and randomness we end up with a situation where there is no 1:1 mapping of damage/hit points from TT to live simulation.

Using the TT 100% does not make for a fun or balanced live simulation game.

The final numbers are not in yet on damage or hit points (armor/internal structure). We're still balancing everything. Right now we are running 2X Internal Structure and Armor.

Here's my person OP on the state of the game.

The game feels good and mostly balanced. Mechs die fast or slow, depending on the number of players, and the skill present on the battlefield. I've seen 5 second engagements, and 2 minute engagements. Some lucky shots, a LOT of skilled shots. Missiles need some love, mostly in the accuracy department. All beam/projectile weapons just received a nerf via adoption of true TT ranges. This has a major impact on the small laser boats that are floating around FNF Beta.

[neodym]

finaly... so its 2x.... me gusta,the MW4 was too much

[Vexgrave Lars]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 May 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

While I appreciate the passion here, the intensity needs to be turned down a bit.

From Day 1 our goal was to take the TT rules and create a game that reflects the spirit of those rules. Since so many of the TT rules are designed to work around simulating skill and randomness we end up with a situation where there is no 1:1 mapping of damage/hit points from TT to live simulation.

Using the TT 100% does not make for a fun or balanced live simulation game.

The final numbers are not in yet on damage or hit points (armor/internal structure). We're still balancing everything. Right now we are running 2X Internal Structure and Armor.

Here's my person OP on the state of the game.

The game feels good and mostly balanced. Mechs die fast or slow, depending on the number of players, and the skill present on the battlefield. I've seen 5 second engagements, and 2 minute engagements. Some lucky shots, a LOT of skilled shots. Missiles need some love, mostly in the accuracy department. All beam/projectile weapons just received a nerf via adoption of true TT ranges. This has a major impact on the small laser boats that are floating around FNF Beta.

A more than fair answer, thanks Bryan!

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 22 May 2012 - 02:11 PM.