1063 replies to this topic

[KinLuu]

sunprice, on 08 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

why should they change ? you should go play other games . This is the way of MechWarrior , from the oldest version .

Exactly.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Oh, lets penalize good players who learn to shoot accurately, and adjust for latency by implementing a RNG Cone of fire.

Im sure im having de ja vu here.

This is not Battletech, it's not table top it is Mechwarrior, players who put the effort in rise up to the top.

A CoF is still random, however much spin you want to put on it, the computer still decides where within that cone the shot ends up, see WoT and its rounds that mysteriously disappear because they shot out the top of the CoF.

All a CoF will promote is static 1 dimensional game play, because everyone will want to stand still to minimize the CoF bloom
So no RnG CoF is a terrible idea.

I know HRR like combined arms, i know you guys like pure unadulterated Battletech, but it is bad for video gameplay.

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 January 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[Thorqemada]

They wanted it, they got it, now let them suffer for it...

Missiles be very inefficient and that is why you have to make such insane boating setups when you want them as your main weapon which is why Assauls replace the usual missile boats bcs 4x LRM15 with 2880 missiles stored do not fit well into a medium or heavy.
Reducing their damage to 1 is simply making them become a no-choice from the bad choice they be atm.

LRM kill me in maybe 1 of 50 matches bcs i decide its more urtgent to stay in the field and coombat an opponent than to take cover.
In 5 of 50 matches i be killed by SRM.
In 25 of 50 matches i be killed by Guns n Lasers -> Guns n Lasers be OP!

Which leads to the OPs post, everybody knew what would happen with pinpoint accurate target convergence and it happened.
I probably wrote it back that time and i will say it again what my pov is for that problematic:
Make Torso convergence set a a fixed distant point.
Make Arms converge at the target at a medium speed, set weapons on the same arm to a fixed distant point.
Make convergence/weapon accuracy worse the faster the Mechs moves (for guns n lasers - not for missiles)

Edited by Thorqemada, 08 January 2013 - 12:36 AM.

[Dzikun]

DV McKenna, on 08 January 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Oh, lets penalize good players who learn to shoot accurately, and adjust for latency by implementing a RNG Cone of fire.

Im sure im having de ja vu here.

This is not Battletech, it's not table top it is Mechwarrior, players who put the effort in rise up to the top.

This idea doesn't actually panellize any of your shooting skill you know. What it does is stop you from shooting alpha strikes of the same weapon from all sides of your mech with pinpoint accuracy. If you read the OP you'll see that clearly. You're accuracy with any weapon won't suffer from this at all. Your ability too effectively alpha-boat the same weapon will.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Dzikun, on 08 January 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

This idea doesn't actually panellize any of your shooting skill you know. What it does is stop you from shooting alpha strikes of the same weapon from all sides of your mech with pinpoint accuracy. If you read the OP you'll see that clearly. You're accuracy with any weapon won't suffer from this at all. Your ability too effectively alpha-boat the same weapon will.

I've read the Op, and the preceding thread before it, i also know the OP and his unit very well.

CoF does effect my accuracy, because it takes it out of my hands and into the computers to decide in which part of the bloom it places that shot...short of standing perfectly still and not having any bloom, it removes any movement based playstyle because you'll be penalized for doing so.

It's a skill based pvp game, skill should dictate the winners and losers, that skill involves piloting and accuracy, so leave the accuracy in the players hands.

There is a reason this is called Mechwarrior and the games before it, it's a spin off, and not directly translated from TT rule for rule.

And not only that, the game is in no way near ready shape to even implement such a system, we'd all be piloting light mechs to take benefit of the -10 to hit modifier

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 January 2013 - 12:47 AM.

[LethalRose]

KinLuu, on 08 January 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Exactly.

What do you mean?

[sgt scout]

Ha ha, only the internet can find these people. What a terrible idea.

[ODonovan]

+1 OP

Actually...+NINE THOUSAAAAAAND!

sunprice, on 08 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

why should they change? you should go play other games. This is the way of MechWarrior, from the oldest version.

DV McKenna, on 08 January 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

This is not Battletech, it's not table top it is Mechwarrior, players who put the effort in rise up to the top.

Let's see... How many times have I heard "This isn't BattleTech. This is MechWarrior!" No, it isn't. MechWarrior was the ROLE PLAYING game that went along with the BattleTech COMBAT game. This is a BattleTech simulation...or it's supposed to be. Otherwise, we wouldn't be running around with all those canon BattleTech 'mechs. It's named 'MechWarrior Online instead of BattleTech Online because all the MW (games 1-4) players identify with that name and they're the largest part of the target audience. If this were truly MechWarrior Online, we'd be able to have our characters get out of the 'mechs and go have a drink at the local bar between missions, or whatever else we would enjoy having them do. They'd have sidearms and utility uniforms...maybe even dress uniforms and civilian clothes. We could even run our avatars around the battlefield after they eject from destroyed 'mechs...if they're still alive, that is. We could stage commando raids to break into factories and carry out truckloads of parts or ammo. Nope... This is definitely BattleTech, not MechWarrior, not even "from the oldest version."

Like it or not, BattleTech was balanced a LOT better than MWO is. We need to get back to that type of balance. As a long time BattleTech player (including online realtime battletech 20 years ago), certain things make me wish for a total reboot. Doubling armor was the first major error, followed by increasing weapon recycle times unequally and unbalancing them with heat dissipation. "Oh no...we can't have ten second recycle times. That's too slow!" No...it's not. That's how fast the modern Abrams tank fires, and it's among the most advanced tanks in the world. It would make mechwarriors choose WHEN to fire and when to move. WOW...tactics! Remember, we're basically playing a science fiction version of a WWII tank game. Modern tanks have gyro-stabilized weapons which can computer lock on targets and destroy them while traveling at full speed from ranges that make battlemechs look like they're firing BB guns.

To fix all the basic balance problems, there can't just be more random changes. I LOVED the Whack-A-Mole reference. That's exactly what it's turned into. If we were to go back to original BattleTech values for everything and start from there, what would happen? If ten second rounds are too slow for you, make all weapons recycle every 6.67 seconds. Make regular heat sinks dissipate one heat and DHS dissipate two heat in that same amount of time. Give all the weapons their BattleTech values for range and damage. That means LRMs hit from farther away than any other 3025 tech weapon except AC/2s. SRMs each hit separate locations at random. Have heat level and speed (stopped/walking/running) affect weapon accuracy Not only could it make aiming less precise, but it could make the reticle slower to move and slower to stop moving...making it harder to aim and fire because the targeting computer has to compensate for the conditions in the 'mech. The BattleTech rule about turning at a run could even be implemented. If you're on a hard surface such as pavement and try to turn a 'mech at a run, you risk falling and skidding to a stop (right in front of a grinning Atlas), also causing damage to your 'mech.

This game has SO much promise. It could (and should) be SO much more by now. I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. It's been months and months without fixes to some of the most game-breaking problems. We need a major overhaul. We're bleeding players faster than new ones are arriving. My unit has a TON of players registered on our website but can MAYBE get five people online during prime time.

KinLuu, on 07 January 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

All mechwarrior games had the same mechanic than MWO. It is what makes these kind of games skill based. Random spread is a bad idea - and most people wont like it. So your idea has no chance. Deal with it.

Without something like it, the GAME has no chance. Deal with THAT.

KinLuu, on 07 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Will not happen. People hate restrictions like that. And PGI can not afford to lose even more customers.

You mean...more customers than they're already losing by having such a broken game? Riiiiight...



Just my .02 C-Bills...

-Irish

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

OP's ideas just don't fit video game, at least not any kind of shooter (and MWO is a shooter, no matter what you say). I remember how annoying and frustrating it was in one of the games (Project IGI I think) to kill someone at a distance - no matter how good your aim was, there always were some random spread, so forget long range headshots. I know it's unrealistic to have pinpoint accuracy, but so is basically everything in BT and MW. Skill - yes, dice roll - no!

[Jennest]

DV McKenna, on 08 January 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

CoF does effect my accuracy, because it takes it out of my hands and into the computers to decide in which part of the bloom it places that shot...short of standing perfectly still and not having any bloom, it removes any movement based playstyle because you'll be penalized for doing so.

It's a skill based pvp game, skill should dictate the winners and losers, that skill involves piloting and accuracy, so leave the accuracy in the players hands.

Hey, are you DV_McKenna in World of Tanks? Not that it matters if you are, but that guy wins 52% of his games and has 60% accuracy. Not bad. I just looked at another guy who wins 50% of the time and has 54% accuracy. That's barely above average. Someone else wins 47% of the time with 35% accuracy. Terrible. Then there's a fellow who wins 71% of his games with 82% accuracy. Outstanding!

If there's no skill involved in aiming with a shot divergence mechanic, why are some people so much better at it than others?

(And if you are DV_McKenna, way to oppose making this game more like one you played over 2,000 battles in.)

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 08 January 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

OP's ideas just don't fit video game, at least not any kind of shooter (and MWO is a shooter, no matter what you say).

Except for almost every single one. Do you think more people are playing this game or Call of Duty, Battlefield, World of Tanks, and Planetside 2?

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

I don't play any of the games you listed, can't say anything (and don't care actually) about other people.

[Yokaiko]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 08 January 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

OP's ideas just don't fit video game, at least not any kind of shooter (and MWO is a shooter, no matter what you say). I remember how annoying and frustrating it was in one of the games (Project IGI I think) to kill someone at a distance - no matter how good your aim was, there always were some random spread, so forget long range headshots. I know it's unrealistic to have pinpoint accuracy, but so is basically everything in BT and MW. Skill - yes, dice roll - no!

Planetside 2 has a recoil effect in two axises....in addition to breathing effects on high power scopes, and people sniper all day in that game.

Headshots and all.

[Apoc1138]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

Read the post. Individual weapons would be PERFECTLY accurate. You would only be subject to the cone of fire IF you fired in groups OR if you fired in rapid succession (to avoid macros).

weapons already have a locked out cooldown, so in what way does weapon spread avoid macros?
sounds like it penalises non-macro users just as much as or more so than macros users because macro users can build a timer in to their macro so that it's exactly the right length to avoid your cone effect, where as manual firers would be going on guess work and not maximising their DPS / accuracy ratio

Jennest, on 08 January 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

(And if you are DV_McKenna, way to oppose making this game more like one you played over 2,000 battles in.)

so just because he's played another game, it's not OK for him to want this one to be different from it?

ODonovan, on 08 January 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

Let's see... How many times have I heard "This isn't BattleTech. This is MechWarrior!" No, it isn't. MechWarrior was the ROLE PLAYING game that went along with the BattleTech COMBAT game. This is a BattleTech simulation...or it's supposed to be.

you seem to be confusing this; http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game)
with this; http://en.wikipedia....deo_game_series)

alot of people being drawn to MWO are those that previously played the mechwarrior video games... all previous mechwarrior video games diverged in quite big ways from the table top rules and some people are confused as to why it is such a massive surprise and bone of contention that the latest mechwarrior video game is doing the same

Edited by Apoc1138, 08 January 2013 - 01:40 AM.

[Apoc1138]

doublepost deleted

Edited by Apoc1138, 08 January 2013 - 01:40 AM.

[Herbstwind]

sunprice, on 08 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

why should they change ? you should go play other games . This is the way of MechWarrior , from the oldest version .

That is simply not true - Mechwarrior (1) even had a system that included your characters skill into accuracy. So basically you had to have the highest character skill to actually hit where you aimed, weapons went off (and you could destroy your own srms if you fired beam weapons with/at them


on OP : I just can not agree more +1 for your epic struggle

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Jennest, on 08 January 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

Hey, are you DV_McKenna in World of Tanks? Not that it matters if you are, but that guy wins 52% of his games and has 60% accuracy. Not bad. I just looked at another guy who wins 50% of the time and has 54% accuracy. That's barely above average. Someone else wins 47% of the time with 35% accuracy. Terrible. Then there's a fellow who wins 71% of his games with 82% accuracy. Outstanding!

If there's no skill involved in aiming with a shot divergence mechanic, why are some people so much better at it than others?

(And if you are DV_McKenna, way to oppose making this game more like one you played over 2,000 battles in.)

2000 battles is not alot, considering i enrolled on the 03.12.2011!
One thing those stats don't tell you, is the last time i logged in, ie apart from a quick flirt with the new tier 10 heavy i have not played it actively for nearly 8 months maybe more.

The other thing those stats do not tell you, is i did not enjoy the WoT CoF system either, hence why i use it here as a thing to stay away from. ( i also didnt enjoy the invisible tanks at 20M but thats another point)

And the last thing, playing 400 of those games in artillery, really does not help ones accuracy, especially when given when i was playing with the fairly quick reloads you spend most of the time blind firiing into bushes

[MustrumRidcully]

It is not absolutely necessary to have cone of fire or weapon spread. But it will take a few adjustments to mechs and weapons to make it reasonably balanced.

1) The table top stats on which weapons are still based on made weapons that dealt more damage more expensive. But not just by saying "Okay, a PPC deals twice the damage of a medium laser, so it must be twice as hot and twice as heavy", but by an additional factor that was to compensate for the advantage of delainga lot of damage in one single package to one hit location. With convergence, this factor must basically be excised, which means that either low damage weapons must become heavier or deal even less damage, or high damage weapons must deal more damage, or produce less heat, or become lighter, or a combination thereof.

2) Since people can choose their hit location more reliably now (it's not a given you always hit exactly the mech section you intended to fire at, but you can significantly raise your chances), the armour values on "important" hit locations must be increased. There is little reason to shoot people in the arm to disable 25 % of their firepower if with twice the damage to the center torso, you can kill them completely. So basically, head and center torso and to a smaller degree the side torsos need a boost in armour values, so that there is a reason to not just go for the center torso.

[TexAce]

I see every weapon getting used. Everything. PPCs are a bit weak, but everything else is fine.

However you saying Med Lasers are weak is total BS to me. They are the best weapon to have on any mech as assistance to the heavy guns. Best heat to weight to damage ratio.

Weapons are fine, the netcode is the problem. Once it's fixed an AC20 will be much more dangerous for everyone.

Yokaiko, on 08 January 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

Planetside 2 has a recoil effect in two axises....in addition to breathing effects on high power scopes, and people sniper all day in that game.

Headshots and all.

Yes, but there you have no netcode problems and if you aim at someone with your crosshair you HIT.
My second shot fired in Planetside 2 was a headshot because I pinpointed my crosshair onto the heads guy like its natural for any gamer.

Edited by TexAss, 08 January 2013 - 02:28 AM.

[Flapdrol]

boats will be extremely powerfull if the netcode ever gets fixed, but the devs can deal with that problem then.

doesnt have to be cone of fire based, you can just say if multiple weapons fire at the same time you produce a little more heat per shot and if you get hit by lots in one location some of the damage spreads to the mech parts next to it.

[Karl Split]

Sorry, i disagree with most of your points op.

Only one i really agree with is ac20 needs a buff.

Games with large weapon spread rarely work well in FPS territory and lets face it, this is an FPS.

Double armor was a good choice, makes the games less of a whackarat poke your head out affair.

Hardpoints were needed to stop this becoming a stupid how many MLAS can i fit on it affair.

If anything i'd like it so all mechs were stock and thats it, until omnimechs arrive