1063 replies to this topic

[Mr Mantis]

I don't think cone fire is a good idea. The only thing a cone fire system would do is make mechs fight as close to the other mechs as possable to get the most focused damage. Weapon balance issues should be handled in ways that make sence for the game, not on what the game is based on (table top).

[Dreamslave]

Stopped reading after you mentioned something about "significant deviation from BT canon" or whatever. This isn't a tabletop game, this isn't real life. It's a game that HAS to be fun or else it will fail. If every weapon is a carbon copy of it's BT lore counterpart, this game would be complete trash.

[Pht]

Soy, on 12 January 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

Just saying, you're doing the equivalent of holding a movie to a book, then bitching about why some char said a diff line, etc.

So?

Quote

This is a computer game not a TT,

How does this necessitate that we should ignore the TT combat mechanics?

Quote

PS - This is not a "computer game" version of TT. It never will be. It never was supposed to be. It couldn't be, anyways. Besides, that already exists.................

And yet again I have to repeat myself.

I'm not asking for 3D turn-based TT gaming.

I have repeatedly posted this multiple times in multiple threads.

Dreamslave, on 12 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

It's a game that HAS to be fun or else it will fail.

... and how would using the TT combat system minus all the parts of it that simulate player skill in a first-person real time format NOT be a fun game?

Quote

If every weapon is a carbon copy of it's BT lore counterpart, this game would be complete trash.

Why?

... and if you really believe this, WHY are you playing a game based off of the BT lore?

Edited by Pht, 12 January 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Just a follow on...

I just made a Hollander (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hollander) using the Spider Chassis.

It works. A single Gauss with 10 shots (compared to 16 for the Hollander).

It is not viable in MWO. Why? Because of double armor. 15 damage SHOULD be enough to punch all the way through a light 'Mech's armor in one shot. Or rip most of armor off of a torso section.

Currently, it does nothing because you just can't do enough damage to make a difference with it. If they gave twice the ammo per ton, it _might_ have a chance of being used... but no. A mere 25% increase while dropping the damage by half.

It sucks and illustrates my original point. Large weapons are nerfed because PGI haven't implemented weapon spread to allow weapons to do the damage they 'should' do.

Fix your stuff, PGI.

[M4rtyr]

TT has very well done balanced rules and stats, why not use them -WHERE WE CAN-.

That being said obviously without pilot/gunnery rolls there are alot of things that can't be strictly canon. But when you start with canon, like the weapon stats which the devs have. You can't step too far away from them in any one direction.

The biggest flaws I've seen from weapon balancing is it seems coming out of CB people just pay attention to damage more then anything and forget that just like mech types different weapons have different roles in battle and those roles are part of the balance along side the actual stats themselves.

Like LRM's not doing enough damage so they get an increase. Why? LRM's aren't supposed to be anything other then support artiliery softening targets up not killing everything before they get to the line.

These are the things I think the community, especially the CB people, have overlooked or simply don't understand and thats causing some odd weapon changes.

[SpiralRazor]

M4rtyr, on 15 January 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

TT has very well done balanced rules and stats, why not use them -WHERE WE CAN-.

That being said obviously without pilot/gunnery rolls there are alot of things that can't be strictly canon. But when you start with canon, like the weapon stats which the devs have. You can't step too far away from them in any one direction.

The biggest flaws I've seen from weapon balancing is it seems coming out of CB people just pay attention to damage more then anything and forget that just like mech types different weapons have different roles in battle and those roles are part of the balance along side the actual stats themselves.

Like LRM's not doing enough damage so they get an increase. Why? LRM's aren't supposed to be anything other then support artiliery softening targets up not killing everything before they get to the line.

These are the things I think the community, especially the CB people, have overlooked or simply don't understand and thats causing some odd weapon changes.

If you devote 50+ tons to LRMS, its not support artillery. You keep trying to posit that viewpoint, and its just not valid. You still advance it regardless of the RL facts of mobile rocket artillery and in game usage either in TT or any single one of the Mechwarrior titles that came before.

[geldonyetich]

I did a quick Google search just now to see if, in fact, that new Mechwarrior Online game they're making (this one) actually has a cone of fire or not. I came across this thread in fairly short order.

Upon this question hinged whether or not I would bother playing the game, because I know exactly what the OP knows: the entire Battletech system was designed around the idea of imperfect accuracy on the weapons:

• More than that, variable accuracy on the weapons, e.g. a large laser will be a lot more accurate than a small laser. The tons and crits of all the equipment was balanced with variable accuracy in mind.
  
• The armor was also balanced with intent that reliably hitting the exact part you wanted was generally not possible. Now, I would accept a comprimise. I do like the idea that, if you're utilizing a weapon from within it's shortest range (e.g. 90 M on a medium laser) the cone of fire (targetting reticle) will be comparitively small on the target, thereby providing some reasonable reliability to shoot at specific panels of armor.
  
• Movement is supposed to impact your accuracy. In a game with pointpoint aim, it does not (at least provided you can click on something slowly moving across your screen). A cone of fire that grows on movement makes this possible.
  
• Other factors, such as arm actuator damage and current engine heat, are supposed to impact your accuracy. Again, a cone of fire that grows on heat makes this possible.
  
• The OP's observation that mounting x number of weapons essentially turns into a force multiplier with pinpoint accuracy is a good one: 4 medium lasers were never intended to be one AC/20.

I've played a great deal of Battletech simulators that went ahead and did pinpoint accuracy, and the compromises that the developers had to take to make it even remotely challenging completely undermined the depth of the system. For example, in Mechwarrior 4 (perhaps the best-balanced example) the weapons ended up highly diluted, and the armor points were as much as tripled (even on the head) because otherwise it was just way too easy to snipe off a part even with diluted weaponry.

From what I'm reading here, apparently pinpoint accuracy is the rule that the developers are going for here. So long as this remains the case, I will not be playing this game. I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy the broken-arse game that results, but I'm not going to drop a dime on a game that so stubbornly guts its own long-term potential by dumping the depth a cone of fire brings in order to please the simple-minded twitch mindset. This is supposed to be a massively multiplayer online Battletech simulator game, not Counterstrike with mechs.

Edited by geldonyetich, 21 January 2013 - 07:43 PM.

[Leprosyvirus]

If we have cone of fire random accuracy then all glory to the light mechs.

[RagingOyster]

Creative ideas, but not something I would like to see implemented. Cone of fire and weapon spread would juts turn the game into a roll of the dice, luck-based deal where you just cross your fingers and hope you hit the enemy. Either that or you plink away at them with one ML at a time and games will last for days on end...

I agree that the single-weapon boats are an annoying problem, and trust me i do not like seeing gausscats/AC/20 cats/SRM cats any more than you, but making weapon groups go by CoF would seriously hurt everyone not just boats. I mean, I run a D-DC with and ERLL in each arm as primary weapons that I can fire frequently. I use them because unlike my ACs and SSRMs they are effective at any range and give me consistent damage. I do not want to have to deal with CoF simply because I have 2 ERLLs in a group firing together, and i am sure no one else does either.

The devs can and will find a more elegant solution than just slapping on hard nerfs to weapons or radically changing armor values. Convergence is a solid idea, and I assume you mean it in the sense that my ERLLs will hit progressively farther apart the closer my mech is to the enemy to simulate the arms not being able to aim at very small angles inward, but they will still hit dead-on at long range?

[StalaggtIKE]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

On June 17, 2012, I posted a thread (http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1) stating that the Developer’s on-going attempts to balance weapons without some mechanism of weapon spread (cone of fire, convergence, etc) were doomed. And by extension, the game itself was likely doomed to suffer terrible weapon/armor balance.

During this thread the Devs indicated that a solution (weapon convergence, even if this is a non-optimal solution) would be implemented that would address this issue. They asked me to wait.

I promised I would wait.

I have waited more than six months.

The Devs are continuing to balance (or unbalance) weapons. But they haven’t bothered implementing their favored solution (weapon convergence) and as I predicted, we are seeing the predicted progression of cascading problems related to groups of weapons being pin-point accurate:

• Significant deviations from BattleTech canon for weapons (ML, LL, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, etc) including damage/heat making individual weapons weak relative to armor
  
• Armor doubled exacerbating the individual weapon weakness
  
• Hardpoints significantly limiting customization (not ideal, but tolerable)
  
• Large weapons are not powerful (Single AC20 = not dangerous)
  
• Need groups of small weapons to be effective, single ML or SL is basically worthless vs. doubled armor, especially with heat nerf to MLs
  
• Mechs are generally nerfed because small weapons are nerfed (MGs, SLs, MLs, etc) combined with hardpoints.
  
• Grouped weapons dominate the field (2xGR, 2-4xPPC, 3-6xLL, 9xSL, 2xAC20, 4xAC2, 3xUAC5) because individual weapons are weak compared to groups of weapons and vs. double armor.
  
• Constant struggles when implementing and balancing new ‘Mechs/variants/weapons (new ‘Mechs need to be hardpoint nerfed to prevent unbalanced grouped weapon configurations such as 3xGR mechs... though they’re coming via CBT canon). The Stalker with it’s 6LL/6PPC is just the most recent issue.

In brief, without weapon spread, BattleTech weapon, critical, internal structure, and armor models can not and will not be balanced in a MechWarrior game. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. If you have a system where you can add more than one weapon of a given type to a ‘Mech and shoot them with pinpoint accuracy, you have effectively created WeaponX2. Or WeaponX5. Or whatever multiplier is appropriate. If I can combine 8 Medium Lasers into a ‘super-laser’ that hits for 8-times the damage due to pin-point accuracy and convergence, the weapon/armor model will ALWAYS be broken. Doesn’t matter if it’s lasers, PPCs, Gauss, or ACs.


The only way to fix this is to modify the behavior of weapons fired in a group vs. those fired singly. Keep in mind here, I’m not asking for ‘dice-based’ gaming. I’m not asking for CBT or death. I’m asking for sanity. This is a pure mathematical argument on damage (D) from a number of weapons (n).

D < D*n where n > 1

Groups of weapons are ALWAYS more effective than a single weapon of that type. Always. This is why people boat weapons. It’s because it’s the smart thing to do.

However, this is a FIXABLE problem.

Therefore, I, again, call upon the Developers to fix this. Implement some version of weapon spread. Implement weapon convergence. (the current 2-target recticle thing doesn’t do anything). Implement SOMETHING before it is too late. If you move out of Open Beta without even trying this, you will have failed to adequately test and explore the game development space. This game deserves a chance to be tested with weapon spread for weapons fired in groups or in rapid succession. And if we go much further into Open Beta (or full launch), I very much doubt that there will be a chance to go back and try weapon spread in the future.

Beta is the time for this to happen. Please, give us a chance to test this. MechWarrior with a cone-of-fire could be an amazing game. You could balance heat effects on weapons (as is intended in classic BattleTech), you can balance groups of weapons, you can adjust for movement (walking vs. running vs. jumping), knock, and everything else we’ve wanted. You just have to give it a chance. There is a reason that most combat simulation games use cone-of-fire. It works. It simulates actual effects of combat. But even weapon convergence would help. Almost anything would help.

Except tweaking individual weapons.

Whack-a-mole balancing will always lead to the ‘next-best’ weapons/loadout/’Mech being made ‘best’. That’s what’s going to happen when they tweak the hardpoints on the K2 or adjust the Guass, or whatever. My guess is that LLs or PPCs will become the ‘next best’, but I guess we’ll see.

If weapon spread in some fashion isn’t implemented, all you’ve done is update the graphics on MW4 weapon balance. This is a fine thing, but it’s not the ‘best’ it can be.

I’ll be happy to answer questions and clarify anything that is unclear. Before responding, keep the following issues in mind:

1. While I would like CBT values, that’s not the point of this post. The proposed fix has the side-effect of allowing CBT values, but does not require them. It only allows you to balance single weapons vs. groups of weapons. The benefit of the fix is that it allows us to actually simulate CBT. Thus... MechWarrior.

2. Because single weapons fired sufficiently apart (subject to balance, probably 0.5-1 second gap to prevent macroing) are NOT subject to weapon spread (read the above carefully), this idea does NOT make the game into a random number generator. If you fire one weapon at a time, you are still pin-point accurate. Good gunnery still matters, the proposed solution just allows you to use big weapons to maximum effect. If you fire groups, then you suffer the consequences (as intended by the fix).

3. There are lots of other ways to implement a variation on weapon spread (e.g., MPBT:3025 dropped damage on weapons fired together). Cone of fire is my favorite, but I just want one of them implemented. Pick one.

Developers, I warned you in June 2012. I’m warning you again now. Add weapon spread or be prepared to suffer MW4-type grouped weapon balance problems indefinitely to the detriment of the game and its longevity.

Insanity

Edit: Fixed formatting.

+1

You must remember people do not read. You need to make it obvious that your suggestion would also have armor points halved from the current values.

[RagingOyster]

geldonyetich, on 21 January 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

I did a quick Google search just now to see if, in fact, that new Mechwarrior Online game they're making (this one) actually has a cone of fire or not. I came across this thread in fairly short order.

Upon this question hinged whether or not I would bother playing the game, because I know exactly what the OP knows: the entire Battletech system was designed around the idea of imperfect accuracy on the weapons:

• More than that, variable accuracy on the weapons, e.g. a large laser will be a lot more accurate than a small laser. The tons and crits of all the equipment was balanced with variable accuracy in mind.
  
• The armor was also balanced with intent that reliably hitting the exact part you wanted was generally not possible. Now, I would accept a comprimise. I do like the idea that, if you're utilizing a weapon from within it's shortest range (e.g. 90 M on a medium laser) the cone of fire (targetting reticle) will be comparitively small on the target, thereby providing some reasonable reliability to shoot at specific panels of armor.
  
• Movement is supposed to impact your accuracy. In a game with pointpoint aim, it does not (at least provided you can click on something slowly moving across your screen). A cone of fire that grows on movement makes this possible.
  
• Other factors, such as arm actuator damage and current engine heat, are supposed to impact your accuracy. Again, a cone of fire that grows on heat makes this possible.
  
• The OP's observation that mounting x number of weapons essentially turns into a force multiplier with pinpoint accuracy is a good one: 4 medium lasers were never intended to be one AC/20.

I've played a great deal of Battletech simulators that went ahead and did pinpoint accuracy, and the compromises that the developers had to take to make it even remotely challenging completely undermined the depth of the system. For example, in Mechwarrior 4 (perhaps the best-balanced example) the weapons ended up highly diluted, and the armor points were as much as tripled (even on the head) because otherwise it was just way too easy to snipe off a part even with diluted weaponry.


From what I'm reading here, apparently pinpoint accuracy is the rule that the developers are going for here. So long as this remains the case, I will not be playing this game. I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy the broken-arse game that results, but I'm not going to drop a dime on a game that so stubbornly guts its own long-term potential by dumping the depth a cone of fire brings in order to please the simple-minded twitch mindset. This is supposed to be a massively multiplayer online Battletech simulator game, not Counterstrike with mechs.

You do not have to spend a dime.
Some BT fan you claim to be if you simply refuse to even test the latest game (and only one we have had in TEN YEARS) just because you think that a decision made by the devs will ruin everything. Sorry to tell you, but TT games do not perfectly translate into FP computer games. It is unfortunate, but something almost everyone acknowledges. Min/maxes exists and will exist in any multiplayer game, so it is going to exist here. The devs do what they can to make a balanced game and so far they are doing a damn fine job of it if you ask me and most of the rest of the players. Sorry that you feel that this game is doomed, reghardless I will try to address your points.

• Variable accuracy: valid point, would like to see it implemented in some way
  
• Armor balance: armor is fine in the current state of the game, some values will be lowered if changes are made
  
• Movement impacts accuracy: it does, when the screen moves and shakes and your target is moving accuracy is negatively affected, a good translation of "to hit" rolls in TT into the FPS system
  
• Heat/damage/other factors: valid, but any element of randomization is a FPS is usually a bad thing seeing as it removes the skill element from the game
  
• OP's observations: his views on boating are valid, and a solution needs to be found to the boating that seems to dominate the game right now, hardpoint size restrictions would be good IMO so that, for example, Cats could not cram gauss rifles or AC/20s into hardpoints that look like MG ports

[Asmudius Heng]

I agree with Insanity - however I cannot se the developers changing their mind about this now. It is a shame, but I just get the feeling they are too wed to the way they have done things now judging from a number of comments they have mentioned.

Thsi would require a major revision of the entire game system and this is not BETA any more no matter how much people want to think it is. This is live and they are taking money and if they mess with the balance too much they will have angry customers who do not feel like this is a testing phase but this is the complete game.

Business wise - I cannot see it happening - though I wish it would.

The only glimmer of hope I have is that if they stay with pinpoint aiming they start implementing boating rules that make it more difficult to do so via other mechanicsms and other mechanics changes such as giving MGs and LBX better internal damage and so forth.

This will not fix the issue - but it might make it less of an issue while keeping some of the spirit of BT balance and flavour still alive.

So i am all for it Insanity - but I have lost hope any major changes will happen at all. I am trying to suggest thingsn that work on the edges of thier core mechanics to help balance things more but the state of the game probably will not shift too much from current i fear.

Sorry to be so downbeat

[Josef Nader]

Someone hasn't been playing this game -at all-, have they? You're so far out of touch I don't even know where to begin rebutting your argument.

You don't make a single correct point in the entirety of the OP.

[Frostiken]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

• Significant deviations from BattleTech canon for weapons (ML, LL, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, etc) including damage/heat making individual weapons weak relative to armor

Yeah because we all know tabletop, was perfect, flawless, and made total sense and was ideal to fit into an FPS game where people would love to wait 10 seconds for every shot to cycle.

Seriously? The only way to balance most of the cheese is to QUIT following what previous Mechwarrior games did and create your own way of doing things, and QUIT being hobbled by this asinine idea of what the rules should be exactly like.

Mechwarrior is the UNIVERSE. Mechwarrior is a PPC bolt being blue and doing lots of damage, not pushing your tape-repaired glasses up your acne-covered nose and quoting the exact numbers. Adhering to the tabletop rules has caused nothing but problems. What exactly, pray tell, does adhering strictly to the TT rules bring to the game? Can you name ONE REASON why they should?

Quote

• Armor doubled exacerbating the individual weapon weakness

Yep, and weapons also cycle fifty times faster and don't miss if you don't want them to. With TT armor levels and TT weapon rules, fights would be over in three seconds.

Quote

• Hardpoints significantly limiting customization (not ideal, but tolerable)

Seriously? The mechlab is the single worst thing to have ever existed in Mechwarrior games. It alone is responsible for almost every problem these games have. It has done more damage than any other single aspect. The mechlab should be REMOVED, not loosened up. I also fail to see how this would help any of your perceived 'balance problems'. Even with the very slightly limited mechlab we have now people are abusing it to game-ruining extremes. And you want to make it even worse? Once again, what does a limitless mechlab bring to the game?

The kind of people who want an unlimited mechlab are probably the same kind of douchebags who would whine that they can only carry one rifle and a sidearm in Battlefield (by which I mean idiots).

Quote

• Large weapons are not powerful (Single AC20 = not dangerous)

My *** they aren't. The stock Hunchback is literally the only default loadout mech I've found that I'd feel comfortable taking out without a visit to the Mechlab first.

Quote

• Need groups of small weapons to be effective, single ML or SL is basically worthless vs. doubled armor, especially with heat nerf to MLs
  
• Mechs are generally nerfed because small weapons are nerfed (MGs, SLs, MLs, etc) combined with hardpoints.
  
• Grouped weapons dominate the field (2xGR, 2-4xPPC, 3-6xLL, 9xSL, 2xAC20, 4xAC2, 3xUAC5) because individual weapons are weak compared to groups of weapons and vs. double armor.

You know what? In original tabletop, Tech Level 1, a badass mech had one large laser, two medium lasers, and an LRM-10. This was probably an assault weight loadout. When the Clans hit the scene, you had mechs with four medium lasers, two large lasers, two LRM-20s, all on a heavy chassis.

The problem you're describing is a game pacing problem. Armor levels need to be high, because some cheesedick with the mechlab (your favorite thing, remember) just replaced his three small lasers, originally put on the chassis as a utilitarian weapon, with large lasers. If the game were designed so that two medium lasers were considered highly effective, three large lasers would cut anything in half without any effort. How exactly do you propose to fix this? Don't forget, the FLAWLESSLY BALANCED TABLETOP CLAN TECH is coming at some point or another and will completely ruin this game forever. Make sure you address that too.

Oh and the reason grouped weapons are used is because it's EASIER. Again, thanks to your precious mechlab, people are going to min/max their mechs. Having four different weapon systems with four different ranges and aiming parameters is hard. It's easier if they're all the same, and they all hit the same place at the same time. Mechlabs kill variety for this reason alone.

Quote

In brief, without weapon spread, BattleTech weapon, critical, internal structure, and armor models can not and will not be balanced in a MechWarrior game. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. If you have a system where you can add more than one weapon of a given type to a ‘Mech and shoot them with pinpoint accuracy, you have effectively created WeaponX2. Or WeaponX5. Or whatever multiplier is appropriate. If I can combine 8 Medium Lasers into a ‘super-laser’ that hits for 8-times the damage due to pin-point accuracy and convergence, the weapon/armor model will ALWAYS be broken. Doesn’t matter if it’s lasers, PPCs, Gauss, or ACs.

Despite all that I said, I agree. I don't know why people are so terrified of weapon cones of fire. People seem to have this asinine idea that a cone of fire means you shoot your small laser, and it comes out 90 degrees to the side. We're fine with cones of fire in just about every single other FPS game, why not this one? Even MWLL made the reticule bounce when you were moving affect your aim, which isn't even in MWO.

[Frostiken]

RagingOyster, on 21 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Creative ideas, but not something I would like to see implemented. Cone of fire and weapon spread would juts turn the game into a roll of the dice

Oh, ******* please.

Let's take Battlefield 3. You have two kinds of rifles - assault rifles (long barrels) and carbines (shorter barrels). In order to make these two guns different, carbines have better hipfire accuracy, but considerably worse aimed accuracy. It is, quite literally, a cone of fire made manifest. Long-ranged aimed shots with the carbines have poor accuracy and you probably won't hit anything.

Now you ******* tell me that this degrades the game to a 'roll of the dice'.

Mechwarrior is not quake. If you think skill is so important, I question why you're even playing Mechwarrior in the first place, a game where you shoot giant apartment-building-sized robots that you almost literally cannot miss and have guided missiles.

[Josef Nader]

Because some of us can actually aim, unlike you lobster-clawed stroke victims who want to rely on some RNG telling you whether you hit or not. I don't -play- any other modern "competitive" FPS games precicely BECAUSE of the huge lowering of the skill ceiling done by drunken reticule waving and huge cones of fire that mean your assault rifle isn't worth the pixels it's made of outside of 15m.

This game is already brawltastic, and those of us that use direct-fire weapons already fight to keep up with those with auto-target weapons. In a light v light match, Streaks win every time. The obvious solution to this is to gimp direct fire weapons so that streaks have even MORE of an advantage. On top of that, let's add imperfect aim to all of our direct fire ballistics too, so even IF I can hit an enemy mech's head in the swirling chaos of a tight brawl with my AC20, some computer can randomly decide that, nah, I was half a degree off and I missed entirely or hit his chest instead. Wonderful.

This whole thread translates to "I suck at competitive shooters. Please add handicaps so that good players who have taken the time to master the skills needed to play this game can't wreck my arse." No on all fronts.

[Frostiken]

Josef Nader, on 21 January 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

Because some of us can actually aim, unlike you lobster-clawed stroke victims who want to rely on some RNG telling you whether you hit or not. I don't -play- any other modern "competitive" FPS games precicely BECAUSE of the huge lowering of the skill ceiling done by drunken reticule waving and huge cones of fire that mean your assault rifle isn't worth the pixels it's made of outside of 15m.

It's funny how you say that, given the greatest competitive FPS game of all time was Counter-Strike which had cones of fire larger than anything you see in any other FPS game today.

It's also nice of you to assume that everyone who wants better GAMEPLAY just obviously sucks at this game. So why don't you go back to MW4 where you had pixel-perfect instant laser blasts of doom where you could simulate your Quake glory days in a game where movement is basically shuffling in two directions and your targets can't even dodge?

Yeah, you're so stoked for competition and skill, you only play games that don't even have ladders and competitive scenes.

Edited by Frostiken, 21 January 2013 - 09:57 PM.

[Josef Nader]

Frostiken, on 21 January 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

It's funny how you say that, given the greatest competitive FPS game of all time was Counter-Strike which had cones of fire larger than anything you see in any other FPS game today.

Didn't like Counterstrike either. Couldn't hit a bloody thing with those damn cones of fire unless you were holding stock still and crouched.

Long and short of it is, the minute my weapons stop going where I tell them to is the minute I stop playing this game.

[Frostiken]

Josef Nader, on 21 January 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Didn't like Counterstrike either. Couldn't hit a bloody thing with those damn cones of fire unless you were holding stock still and crouched.

So you talk about how great you are and how competition is the best thing in the ******* world, and then say you sucked at what is basically the gold standard of FPS game competition. After you accuse everyone who wants better gameplay of being 'lobster clawed stroke victims' who just want the game 'dumbed down'.


Do you want to know why people don't make "competitive FPS games" with "high skill ceilings"?

Because they aren't ******* fun. Brink was designed to appeal to competitive gameplay. It had a great movement system and solid shooter handling. It failed, because your average player is used to getting a little more out of an FPS game than stroking your **** to a 'YOU ARE THE WINNER' screen. Enemy Territory Quake Wars had excellent skill ceilings and really refined the massively popular Wolfenstein ET game. The result, it failed spectacularly. The average player didn't find it fun, and the competitive egotists like you were too cheap to change games from W:ET which you were already playing. Then you whine that nobody makes games like that anymore.

Competitive games like you describe are dead, because nobody finds them fun. I don't find them fun. The last fiercely competitive game I played was probably Natural Selection, and Natural Selection 2, attempting to appeal to 'skill' and 'competition', sucks and died and lost 80% of its playerbase in the first month.

People got spoiled, me along with them. We actually want depth in our games, and there is usually almost no depth to shooters that advertise to be "competitive". The entire reason games like CS and Quake were like they were was because shooters were crude things at the time. The concept of a pixel-perfect hitscan weapon was the defacto standard of getting shooting done, cones of fire barely existed as a concept back then. This was when you still ran over glowing things on the ground to get DOUBLE DAMAGE. They were arcade games.

I'd give you more examples but a can't because, like I said, nobody makes them anymore, because nobody cares.

People like you also make up the playerbases of those games, and who the **** would want to hang out in a community like that? You don't find any game with a cone of fire fun, for some ridiculous reason (I'm sure it's because you're such a pro at FPS games. That's why we've all heard of your accolades in Quake). Did you ever maybe think that you're just an ******* who hates fun?

Edited by Frostiken, 21 January 2013 - 10:02 PM.

[Josef Nader]

No, but I'm definitely someone who enjoys a genre that is long since dead. As a certain internet critic puts it, I love shooters, I hate spunkgargleweewee games. Everyone loves spunkgargleweewee nowadays, and shooters are dead.

God forbid that there were people who liked those fast, skillful shooters and who desperately want to see them come back. God forbid there are those of us that hate how dumbed down and oversimplified modern games are, removing all depth in order to cater to people who want to pick up the game and be good at it within half an hour. I'm sorry that makes me an "elitist", but it's the truth. If I can score a headshot while moving at 89 kph with a ballistic weapon that needs to be led to compensate for lagshield, the enemy mech's erratic movement, and all of the other factors on the battlefield, I should be rewarded with that achievement.

Also, ET:Q and Brink failed because they were awful games, not because they were "too hardcore" for modern audiences. Also, if nobody wants to play "hardcore" games anymore because they aren't any fun, explain the resurgence of old franchises built around being freaking difficult, like X-Com. The simple answer is, you're wrong. Hardcore games have died because developers see more money in catering to the unwashed masses, not because nobody wants to play them anymore. If Joe Blow with 10 hours a week to devote to gaming can't pick up your game and see everything there is to see, Publishers won't give you a second glance nowadays.

Plus, there's already been a mech game that was made accessable to everyone with things like third person, fire cones, and zero mechlab access. We don't talk about it.

Edited by Josef Nader, 21 January 2013 - 10:17 PM.