373 replies to this topic

[Indoorsman]

I'm noticing a trend, anybody posts anything and Pht quotes them, asks them a generic question and then assaults their character if they are a repeat poster in this thread. Also there's the fact that no MW game has met his standards, he's obviously a TT fanatic. I don't think he realizes this game has a big learning curve already and that complicating things further would only make this game less successful. During closed beta they had a number showing how many people were in game. I'm wondering why that is gone. They can't afford to go the Über simulation route, they have to do what will make money. As this badly worded poll is still able to show, a majority do not want this game to be more like TT. I'm pretty sure of the people that do, few would want what Pht is trying to suggest.

[Void Angel]

Ryolacap, on 05 January 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

You have to remember what the dice are trying to simulate, aim and the ability to hit the target, its a probability. Wether you like it or not the ability to hit in an FPS can be calculated to a reaonable degree. Some be be better than others but overall the dice represent what we are doing in game. There is not an fps out there that does not represent this probability in one way or another. Sniper sway, ambico fire, long duration rapid fire all have their consequences to keep the playing field level and "realistic". You dont have to roll dice but there should be a simulated drawback to what was being represented by the dice. You can do this by creating a cone of fire like all the other FPS's that have sucessfully simulated weapons fire. single weapons fire more precise while the more weapons or the faster you cycle causes weapons and the aiming cone to widen thier abilty to aim on the money....sorry just makes sense to me. Its obviously a sucessful way to simulate this.

They might end up needing to do just that once the lag shields get fixed, if people start doing too much damage. I don't know how likely that is, but we'll have to see how things work out that way. For now, it seems like they've taken that probability concept and used it to affect damage instead of hit probability - this is what the damage fall-off to maximum range does.

Indoorsman, on 05 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

I'm noticing a trend, anybody posts anything and Pht quotes them, asks them a generic question and then assaults their character if they are a repeat poster in this thread. Also there's the fact that no MW game has met his standards, he's obviously a TT fanatic. I don't think he realizes this game has a big learning curve already and that complicating things further would only make this game less successful. During closed beta they had a number showing how many people were in game. I'm wondering why that is gone. They can't afford to go the Über simulation route, they have to do what will make money. As this badly worded poll is still able to show, a majority do not want this game to be more like TT. I'm pretty sure of the people that do, few would want what Pht is trying to suggest.

Well, whether he realizes it or not, I've pointed out that exact thing (about the learning curve) on this thread. I've just had to block him, and I encourage others to do likewise. "To give truth to him who loves it not is merely to give him more manifest reasons to misunderstand."

[Void Angel]

Stone Wall, on 05 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

50% to 40% right now.

Actually, it's 39.51% to 60.49% The question is a yes/no question, but the "no" results are spread amongst 3 different categories (if you don't know what tabletop is, you can't want the game to be closer to it, for example.) This has the effect of skewing the apparent results of the poll by making the ratio of "yes" to "no" look bigger than it is - just as it did to you.

It's also not a very scientific poll because of the way it selects for people who're... exercised... about conforming to tabletop rules - and those of us who are just sick of hearing it. There's even one guy trolling this subject on these forums who literally does not play - he'll tell you so. All you can really glean from this data is that, of the people who care enough to self-select for the poll and vote, the ones who don't want to re-write the game to be "closer to tabletop" outnumber the ones who do more than half again.

[Void Angel]

PS: Call of Duty guys: What the heck is "ambico fire?" Are you talking about using two weapons at once? I can't find any indication that "ambico" is a real word in this context. In another context, however, they can set you up with some lovely steel doors.

Edited by Void Angel, 05 January 2013 - 10:38 PM.

[DocBach]

Void Angel, on 05 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

PS: Call of Duty guys: What the heck is "ambico fire?" Are you talking about using two weapons at once? I can't find any indication that "ambico" is a real word in this context. In another context, however, they can set you up with some lovely steel doors.

Its a misspelling of akimbo.

[Ukyo Sonoda]

The only issue I really have atm with the balance is the guardian ECM. The reason being they combined it with a tech level 3 system that shouldn't exist in our current timeline without any of the drawbacks or space requirements needed from the tech level 3 system. Thus it does far and beyond too much for the tonnage and space it uses atm and really feels like its the 1 item in the game currently that needs to be reverted to TT rules and function. Or atleast nerfed to be closer in effect to it's TT equivilent.

[Even Dark]

dunno but this game is not a really good mw title.... graphic and scound is great but

the game speed is finally to fast or the maps to small...

finally there is not really a need for long range weapons because you cant fire them usefull, srm builds and close combat setups seems the best in the game here.

atm mw online is for me just a cheap fast shooter from the gameplay not really a taktik game. i like mw and hope the game will be better with the time, but the hope dies at least )

[Sandslice]

Pht, on 05 January 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

Even in grouped weapons you'd still have to do them individually because individual weapons can take damage; as far as heat, the player can't control how tha affects the 'Mechs myomer muscles that drive the 'Mech; so you'd still have to control for that too.

Target movement, cover, etc - it's not the player that is doing the lead calculation. It's the 'Mech's computers that handle that. Otherwise, things would be far to complex for a single human to handle and pilot the 'Mech while trying to calculate lead and such.

No, I'm not saying that the 'Mech does the target tracking in a click-fire-forget setup; the pilot still has to track his target with the reticule. The 'Mechs are specifically built to NOT be able to choose what they shoot at or track targets (too dangerous - mechs are ludicrously destructive). All of those decisions are left up to the pilot.

I get what you're saying. All I'm doing is trying to find a... iono, either a happy medium, or a compromise, between the FPS crowd and the simmers.

With grouping, I was suggesting "use the weakest" as a simple weakest link principle: if you want to improve your good weapons, ungroup the bad. With target movement, I would still leave it to the pilot for two reasons: video gaming skill, and for when the Warhawk and its targeting computer equipment is available. The tarcomp can then have the gameplay features of giving you a leading aim point (as seen in MW2, if I recall,) as well as putting a target mark on a hit location (not to mention being immune to ECM.)

[Ryolacap]

Void Angel, on 05 January 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Actually, it's 39.51% to 60.49% The question is a yes/no question, but the "no" results are spread amongst 3 different categories (if you don't know what tabletop is, you can't want the game to be closer to it, for example.) This has the effect of skewing the apparent results of the poll by making the ratio of "yes" to "no" look bigger than it is - just as it did to you.

It's also not a very scientific poll because of the way it selects for people who're... exercised... about conforming to tabletop rules - and those of us who are just sick of hearing it. There's even one guy trolling this subject on these forums who literally does not play - he'll tell you so. All you can really glean from this data is that, of the people who care enough to self-select for the poll and vote, the ones who don't want to re-write the game to be "closer to tabletop" outnumber the ones who do more than half again.

That is an assumption, I could do a better job with a poll now that i have all the sides. The poll is actually weighted towards the No due to them being clumped into one catagory too much. Most I think put no due to 10 second rounds and dice rolling yet very few said yes for ten second rounds and dice rolling the yes's were generally for stats, then there is PHT (gawd love em). But that to, is an assumption.
Reading the posts you can pretty much assume it to be true though.

yea thats it ..akimbo (sorry havent seen it spelled in years)


Bottom line, if you did poll especially now with how unbalanced things are, you would get way different results.

IMO by the time they find balance it will be back to pretty much TT stats just with different numbers adding up to the same type of balance, like I said before but we will see.

And just to get it straight, I would be fine either way, I just think it is a cop out to not find a way to insert the real stats, it could be done if they would have spent the time to figure out a way. But they didnt, they closed beta tested for what, a month maybe, now the stats are changed and it will be many months before the get things right, dare I say a year or more, who knows. My main point is, look at the forums, and see the results when a game feels off.

Edited by Ryolacap, 06 January 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[AlexWildeagle]

Void Angel, on 05 January 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Actually, it's 39.51% to 60.49% The question is a yes/no question, but the "no" results are spread amongst 3 different categories (if you don't know what tabletop is, you can't want the game to be closer to it, for example.) This has the effect of skewing the apparent results of the poll by making the ratio of "yes" to "no" look bigger than it is - just as it did to you.

It's also not a very scientific poll because of the way it selects for people who're... exercised... about conforming to tabletop rules - and those of us who are just sick of hearing it. There's even one guy trolling this subject on these forums who literally does not play - he'll tell you so. All you can really glean from this data is that, of the people who care enough to self-select for the poll and vote, the ones who don't want to re-write the game to be "closer to tabletop" outnumber the ones who do more than half again.

Someone needs to learn how to read.
yes - meaning it should be like TT
No- it shouldn't be like TT
It is - means its already like table top
What is the TT? meaning they never heard of BattleTech

The people who answered "YES" and "IT IS" is in the affirmative
Where "NO" of course is the negative
And lastly is the group who has never heard of or played so that is niether affirmative or negative.

So really its 46.86% for
and 49.76% against
with 3.47% abstaining.

But really the poll is pointless as this is the latest in the line of MWs which is based off BattleTech. So they really need to get over it. And the devs are fans of BT as well.

Edited by AlexWildeagle, 06 January 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Pht is just another noob without any skill that wants PGI to dumb down the game to his level so that he can compete.

[Stone Wall]

I can read yay.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

I am so tired of these threads.

If you want to play TT so bad,

http://mwtactics.com/
http://www.mekwars.org/
http://www.mekwarslegends.com/

There you go! Your TT experience online. You all can be wishy washy arm chair devs all you want, and say "X would work if they did Y" you know why they don't do that? Because internally developers of FPS MW games have tried and tried and tried and it didn't work. If it worked, and was so simple we would have a direct translation. It doesn't work. People tried and failed. Let it go.

Edited by SJ SCP Wolf, 06 January 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[FrostPaw]

You can't balance real time with turn based dice rules.

[Reginald Fu Manpewpew]

I was appalled that in Dawn of War and Spacemarine that I was not required to create an army list and and deploy the whole lot at the beginning. All this building troops and vehicles is nonsense. In fact why can I build an Avatar when I play Eldar? I should have to take an Exarch from one of my Aspect Warrior units and have the entire 7 day ritual where he/she becomes the Young King and is sacrificed to awaken the Avatar for war. Clearly table top should be the be all and end all of spin off video game design.

[Ken Fury]

Everyone who likes Goons should vote YES.

[Even Dark]

Tank Boy Ken, on 06 January 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Everyone who likes Goons should vote YES.

Some ppl like only action and fast games, some ppl like more strategie and longer games

not all ppl like the matches atm where stalkers run with 5 srms + lasers fittet in the game around or 5 large lasers erc... they need 2 hits for a mech, the only way to counter this is the same close combat build ( i liked my atlas with long med and small range weapons... but now i use 3x6er srm+artemis + ak20 + 2 med pulselasers).

The maps do not allow to fight them or hold them on range from 270m+

The best is they make a new Game Mode that includes "only basic mechs builds with some other rules", i think it can be a good mode if you must fight with standart mechs or under different rules.

so all ppl can chose the mode what they want because there is not allways 1 way in a game for all

exampel:
make a game mode without ecm and you will see how many ppl are playing with ecm mode then

Edited by Even Dark, 06 January 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Indoorsman]

Void Angel, on 05 January 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Actually, it's 39.51% to 60.49% The question is a yes/no question, but the "no" results are spread amongst 3 different categories (if you don't know what tabletop is, you can't want the game to be closer to it, for example.) This has the effect of skewing the apparent results of the poll by making the ratio of "yes" to "no" look bigger than it is - just as it did to you.

AlexWildeagle, on 06 January 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

Someone needs to learn how to read.
yes - meaning it should be like TT
No- it shouldn't be like TT
It is - means its already like table top
What is the TT? meaning they never heard of BattleTech

The people who answered "YES" and "IT IS" is in the affirmative
Where "NO" of course is the negative
And lastly is the group who has never heard of or played so that is niether affirmative or negative.

Like I said earlier, and the OP even agrees, the poll is worded badly. There needs to be a new one.

[MustrumRidcully]

Indoorsman, on 06 January 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

Like I said earlier, and the OP even agrees, the poll is worded badly. There needs to be a new one.

I am not sure we must have another one of these. Isn't it getting a bit tiring and repetitive? WIll you not always end up with forgetting something.

I want Weapons to be balanced based on their weight and possibly their tech level in such a manner that they respect real time, mouse aiming and convergence (or cone of fire,d epending on the designer's choice) that they are reasonably balanced and yet different from each other. Factors like "ease of use" or "range" should be weighted against damage per weight, weight includes considerations on heat cost and ammo cost considering likely engagement length (both per indidual mech to mech combat as for the entire duration of a match). If tech level is supposed to increase power, this must also weighted accordingly.
Combining the individual weapons together into known stock mech designs from the table top game should yield reasonable results that are enjoyable to play, but still imminently tweakable for better performance, better specialization or better generalization, and to generally allow customization to a player's individual play style.
Matches should be balanced taking into account each mech's overall strength (particularly important if tech level grants an advantage over lower tech levels.)

Can you make this one bullet point?

[Void Angel]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Its a misspelling of akimbo.

I was afraid of that. Akimbo properly refers to a posture of hands on the hips, but I guess you had to use some term for using a gun in each hand - there isn't a standard term for it because no skilled firearm user will ever do that crap. Occasionally people have been known to use a pistol in each hand, but they would only fire one at a time except at close range. The reason is that you can't hit jack trying to use two weapons at a time...

Ryolacap, on 06 January 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

VoidAngel said:

Actually, it's 39.51% to 60.49% The question is a yes/no question, but the "no" results are spread amongst 3 different categories (if you don't know what tabletop is, you can't want the game to be closer to it, for example.) This has the effect of skewing the apparent results of the poll by making the ratio of "yes" to "no" look bigger than it is - just as it did to you.

It's also not a very scientific poll because of the way it selects for people who're... exercised... about conforming to tabletop rules - and those of us who are just sick of hearing it. There's even one guy trolling this subject on these forums who literally does not play - he'll tell you so. All you can really glean from this data is that, of the people who care enough to self-select for the poll and vote, the ones who don't want to re-write the game to be "closer to tabletop" outnumber the ones who do more than half again.

That is an assumption, I could do a better job with a poll now that i have all the sides. The poll is actually weighted towards the No due to them being clumped into one catagory too much. Most I think put no due to 10 second rounds and dice rolling yet very few said yes for ten second rounds and dice rolling the yes's were generally for stats, then there is PHT (gawd love em). But that to, is an assumption.
Reading the posts you can pretty much assume it to be true though.
Bottom line, if you did poll especially now with how unbalanced things are, you would get way different results.

IMO by the time they find balance it will be back to pretty much TT stats just with different numbers adding up to the same type of balance, like I said before but we will see.

And just to get it straight, I would be fine either way, I just think it is a cop out to not find a way to insert the real stats, it could be done if they would have spent the time to figure out a way. But they didnt, they closed beta tested for what, a month maybe, now the stats are changed and it will be many months before the get things right, dare I say a year or more, who knows. My main point is, look at the forums, and see the results when a game feels off.

Actually, it's reasoning based on how the poll is set up - I'm assuming nothing. As I've told you before, I don't claim you were trying to skew perceptions; however, the poll asks a simple yes/no question, yet only one answer is a "yes." The other three answers all comprise "no" results: if you think the game is balanced to TT, you don't want it balanced closer; if you don't know what tabletop is, you are not capable of wanting the game balanced closer - all of the alternate answers are a "no" in some way.

The poll also does not give very strong data on how the general player population feels, because the self-selecting nature of the forums in general and this topic in particular mean that you're only getting data on the people who care enough to both post on the forums and vote on this topic. You (or I, or anyone but PGI, really) don't have the means to contact people outside that group, so the poll results only represent some part of the general player population - and we really don't know what part. Thus, the poll's results are only good for evaluating the opinions of those who care enough to participate in the poll.

As for the imbalance, I'm not really seeing a huge problem in games. PPCs are on the rise with the new projectile speed, and aside from machineguns and flamers, you see a good mix of weapons - including LRMS. The only huge problems I'm having with balance concern the netcode - everything else is just a matter of iterational weapons balance.

The people who bring up the 10-second turns in standard battletech are attempting to use what's called a clear case example to demonstrate the foolhardiness of slavishly copying the entire ruleset. They're not saying that a ten-second turn is the reason they don't want that ruleset religiously enforced. Those people would most likely vote no again in your new poll - and comparing a straight "yes" to a bunch of "no, because" options may work to skew your results as well. Also, regardless of the wording, the well is pretty well and truly poisoned by now for anyone who dislikes forum brawls. The topic has gotten pretty combative in places, after all.

Edited by Void Angel, 06 January 2013 - 01:37 PM.