1063 replies to this topic

[The Silent Protagonist]

I leave home for a few days and look what happens... *sigh*
Here's the thing, I cannot name a single game where everything is balanced. The flak cannon always beat everything in unreal tournament, whilst the bio-rifle was even more shocking than the lightning gun (see what I did there? ); Quake's railgun was just better than everything; once you learned how to quickswitch the AWP in CS:S you won the game, and the dual berettas just sucked compared to the deagle; in Planetside 2, the NC stock sniper beats all other starter snipers 'cause it's a 1-hit kill. All of these are successful games, and all of them have their own balancing issues. The devs will do their best to balance the game, but there will always be a slight imbalance somewhere, especially so this early on in a game's life. Dealwithit.jpg
MWO is certainly not doomed. And don't get started on that argument or I will come over there (generic threat to everyone). You know the one I mean.

[Doc Holliday]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

And by no means such a premise could ever be transfered into a (potentially interesting, fun) video game where you play the pilot of a BattleMech ... particularly not to a game that even claims to be simulating a BattleMech. ~laughs~

I enjoy a lot of tabletop games myself. (Although unfortunately Battletech is not among them, but only because the people I game with don't play it.) In fact, I'm a member of probably the biggest board/TT gaming club in the US. And I've played plenty of TT games that were adapted to video game, and video games that were adapted to TT. There's always changes with the basic systems, because they're two completely different mediums. In fact, usually the changes are a LOT more drastic than in this game. When adapting a TT game to a VG, the only way to avoid it is to literally put the TT game in a video game, with board, hexes, dice, and all. Translating directly the opposite direction is, of course, impossible.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 26 February 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Le0yo, on 26 February 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

there is another game here https://mwtactics.com/game pretty much battletech for you,

It's just not a simulation of the piloting eperience of a BattleMechs within the BattleTech Universe ...
But I guess you knew that already, but you still had to post that link again, right?

Quote

why don't you go play that?

What's telling you that I'm not also playing that game?

Quote

this is a FPS sim and im pretty sure most of the players here came from the "action shooter" computer game series (there is a vote up) don't care for all this dice rolling rubbish.

I bolded the somwhat important part for you. See, these "most players that came from the 'action shooter' computer game series" then don't want a "sim", but simply yet another fps just with the franchise's name slapped onto. Their not caring for "dice roll rubbish" is just an expression of actually not understanding what a (more or less) correct simulation of a BattleMech would have to look like.

I'm surely not blaming PGI for trying to reach that particular group of gamers (regardless of their quite obvious tendancy for loud-mouthing and disrespect towards different opinions), but unless they drop the word "simulation" from their very own gaming description you're likely to encounter opinions like the one that is (in large parts) basis for this thread.

Quote

I mean seriously a cone for group fire weapons? you just want to be a walking shotgun that can only tickle people at range.

Actually I'm still not taking a stance concerning that particular implementation, because so far noone has actually tried using such a mechanic for a BattleMech simulation.
Oh, and yes, by the premises of the BattleTech Universe even an assault mech should only be able to "tickle" another mechs at range. ~smile~

Quote

I just picture some stereotype guy who loves his long dead table top.

Lucky me, that I actually haven't played that "long dead table top" that much ... pretty much because it sucked hard in terms of game play.

Quote

Trying to get a fix competing with fps players and serious gamer's and freaking out, id love to actually see the stats of the players saying this kind of stuff...

I just love your way of thinking. Because I'm advocating something that you obviously can't quite fathom, I must be trying to get a "fix" for "competing" with fps players that live in the fantasy of being the only form of "serious" nd "skilled" gamers.
What I'd love to see would be: Players of your kind actually being tested skillwise with a "true" piloting simulation of a BattleMech which behaves in accordance to the gaming universe's premises.

[Tarman]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

I enjoy a lot of tabletop games myself. (Although unfortunately Battletech is not among them, but only because the people I game with don't play it.) In fact, I'm a member of probably the biggest board/TT gaming club in the US. And I've played plenty of TT games that were adapted to video game, and video games that were adapted to TT. There's always changes with the basic systems, because they're two completely different mediums. In fact, usually the changes are a LOT more drastic than in this game.

This.

Format change is a big deal despite what some people want to think. You HAVE to change some things when you change format, or they just don't work. This is the big secret of book-movie translations and why people get mental about it. Look at Lord of the Rings. One of the best adaptations of a book; and still not even close to the book in a lot of parts, and good thing for moviegoers. Imagine ALL the dialogue from scenes of them just sitting around, or other equally boring or extended parts, that are great for a novel but would be completely unsuited for movie presentation. Imagine including ALL the Ent sitting-around-talking scenes in the films, just as one example. Some things do not port across even if they were great in their last setting.

[P e n u m b r a]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 26 February 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

We know they are horrible and are going to constantly spat off that stats don't matter and tactics this and that while they run around in the catapult A1's with 2 LRM 20s bitching at everyone for "cheese" builds. Unfortunately they are a dime a dozen in this game and very vocal in the forums so they think that they are in the majority.

The majority is playing the game and not even on the forums.

its psychology though a person is more likely to complain than give praise, hence on the forums you get all these board game players trying fling up some underhand balancing rules to cater for what they have a hard time playing against and then try get what they want without no real evidence to support their claim. I mean if these sort of things were passed the game would be gutted. I am so glad there is stats to prove they are wrong id hate for half of these rubbish suggestions to be sprung on people who are playing and enjoying the game.

Edited by Le0yo, 26 February 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 12:14 PM, said:

There's always changes with the basic systems, because they're two completely different mediums. In fact, usually the changes are a LOT more drastic than in this game. When adapting a TT game to a VG, the only way to avoid it is to literally put the TT game in a video game, with board, hexes, dice, and all. Translating directly the opposite direction is, of course, impossible.

You see, you're constantly coming back to a comparison between the particular rules/mechanics of the TT vs. a VG. My angle still isn't about the premise of the gaming universe as a whole, or is it?

Let's be honest here: The reason why the previous installments of MechWarrior games didn't really simulate a BattleMech isn't so much a reason of being unable to make an interesting real-time game that keep these premises up, but rather because our hardware wasn't able to provide a good enough representation and the current implementation is overall much easier ... and now - due to acclimatization of the target goup - the curruent implementation also is somewhat "holy" for some of you just as much as you imply the TT game is "holy" for me (at least that's the impression I get from the highly agressive stance you and others have shown so far).

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 26 February 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[P e n u m b r a]

Quote

I just love your way of thinking. Because I'm advocating something that you obviously can't quite fathom, I must be trying to get a "fix" for "competing" with fps players that live in the fantasy of being the only form of "serious" nd "skilled" gamers.


What I'd love to see would be: Players of your kind actually being tested skillwise with a "true" piloting simulation of a BattleMech which behaves in accordance to the gaming universe's premises.

true? what true in a turn based tt, your rules are an opinion if i wanted to be tested there id buy the board game or play a virtual version of it, the system you talk of is balenced around turns and dice rolls for god sake, it would never work in real time without changes. So why not rewrite the whole thing I love how you quoted everything but the modern comparison I had made between the 2 batmans. and every other damn reincarnation of past mediums that have had MASSIVE success without the need to follow some of the crap that came before.
you only need to look at all the remakes to see how good this is granted some have been bad but most of them have been an improvement. game designers learned this in the 90s thankfully when developers realized they did not need to follow a predecessor exactly. it can be a new game and not be limited by the rules of a board game what don't you understand?? as for sim how can it be a true sim you would have to go full realism the maps and range would have to be absurd to even come close to modern weapons range we have missiles that do 2,500 km now. honestly let go of battletech and everything before see it as something new and let them build something great using the universe they have the artistic licence to do so. I also suggest you play the game because half of whats been said is not true or even happening as statistics are showing we are seeing lots of tactics used its interesting.

Edited by Le0yo, 26 February 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Le0yo, on 26 February 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

its psychology though a person is more likely to complain than give praise, hence on the forums you get all these board game players trying fling up some underhand balancing rules to cater for what they have a hard time playing against and then try get what they want without no real evidence to support their claim.

Yet another broad statement ... that couldn't - at least as far as I'm concerned - farther from the truth.

See, I'm more than well aware that I suck at conventional FPS games - at least by the standards of "pros" like yourself ... but guess what, I would suck pretty much in the same way in a "truer" simulation of BattleMech piloting. Yet I'd like to see something like that to be tested (as part of a "beta") instead of outright calling others "stupid" (and harsher things). So at least my participation in this thread hasn't remotely anything to do with a desire to "fling up some underhand balancing rules to cater for what they have a hard time playing against".

[Shumabot]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

It's just not a simulation of the piloting eperience of a BattleMechs within the BattleTech Universe ...
But I guess you knew that already, but you still had to post that link again, right?



What's telling you that I'm not also playing that game?



I bolded the somwhat important part for you. See, these "most players that came from the 'action shooter' computer game series" then don't want a "sim", but simply yet another fps just with the franchise's name slapped onto. Their not caring for "dice roll rubbish" is just an expression of actually not understanding what a (more or less) correct simulation of a BattleMech would have to look like.

I'm surely not blaming PGI for trying to reach that particular group of gamers (regardless of their quite obvious tendancy for loud-mouthing and disrespect towards different opinions), but unless they drop the word "simulation" from their very own gaming description you're likely to encounter opinions like the one that is (in large parts) basis for this thread.



Actually I'm still not taking a stance concerning that particular implementation, because so far noone has actually tried using such a mechanic for a BattleMech simulation.
Oh, and yes, by the premises of the BattleTech Universe even an assault mech should only be able to "tickle" another mechs at range. ~smile~



Lucky me, that I actually haven't played that "long dead table top" that much ... pretty much because it sucked hard in terms of game play.



I just love your way of thinking. Because I'm advocating something that you obviously can't quite fathom, I must be trying to get a "fix" for "competing" with fps players that live in the fantasy of being the only form of "serious" nd "skilled" gamers.
What I'd love to see would be: Players of your kind actually being tested skillwise with a "true" piloting simulation of a BattleMech which behaves in accordance to the gaming universe's premises.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this. You really, really sound like you aren't. Like this is some sort of sleepwalking episode and you're truly convinced that there are drop ships outside your house, but I have something to tell you...

Mechs don't exist. You can't have a true simulation of something that doesn't exist.

Well, yes you can. Turn off your monitor. Stare at it. Contemplate it.



Enjoy that true simulation of a Mech.



The rest of us want to play a game that isn't bad with our monitors turned on.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 February 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[Zyllos]

Garth Erlam, on 26 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

To highlight this, the top three 'builds' of the game don't stack the same weapons - in fact, many of the top 5 utilize 3+ different weapon types.

I think you are missing the point, Garth.

It is not so much using different weapons but allowing all weapons to hit the same spot.

The only weapons in the game that gets around this is missiles, which in SRMs case, you get about 10m away from the mech and then they basically all hit the same spot.

EDIT: You possibly post these top three builds which do not stack weapons?

Edited by Zyllos, 26 February 2013 - 01:00 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

You see, you're constantly coming back to a comparison between the particular rules/mechanics of the TT vs. a VG. My angle still isn't about the premise of the gaming universe as a whole.

Let's be honest here: The reason why the previous installments of MechWarrior games didn't really simulate a BattleMech isn't so much a reason of being unable to make an interesting real-time game that keep these premises up, but rather because our hardware wasn't able to provide a good enough representation and the current implementation is overall much easier ... and now - due to acclimatization of the target goup - the curruent implementation also is somewhat "holy" for some of you just as much as you imply the TT game is "holy" for me (at least that's the impression I get from the highly agressive stance you and others have shown so far).

The only time I discuss TT vs VG is when people use TT as the basis for some absurd change to MWO. I've never played battletech in any format so I'm not concerned about comparing MWO with them, as long as others don't force the comparison. I critique the game on its own, based on what makes a fun video game.

[Doc Holliday]

Zyllos, on 26 February 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

I think you are missing the point, Garth.

It is not so much using different weapons but allowing all weapons to hit the same spot.

The only weapons in the game that gets around this is missiles, which in SRMs case, you get about 10m away from the mech and then they basically all hit the same spot.

And you're ignoring the point I've made several times. If having weapons hit the same spot is such a huge problem, and weapon spread is the answer to all the problems... why are missiles far and away the most-complained-about weapon?

I've said it before, and it must be repeated, because apparently you don't grasp this yet either. Every proposed "solution" I've seen for this "problem" seeks to dumb down weapons and make them more alike. If you start down that kind of path with balancing, you inevitably end up with all weapons functioning more or less identically, which leads to very stale and boring gameplay.

Let me give you an example from another video game from another genre that serves to illustrate. Starcraft is unquestionably the single most popular RTS of all time (possibly the single most popular video game of all time) and widely considered the best RTS of all time, despite being over a decade old. Why exactly is that? I'll tell you why. Because the game uses three factions that function very uniquely and have very distinct strengths and weaknesses, yet are as balanced as is possible. That's the kind of system that makes a video game fun.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 26 February 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[Shumabot]

Garth Erlam, on 26 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

To highlight this, the top three 'builds' of the game don't stack the same weapons - in fact, many of the top 5 utilize 3+ different weapon types.



I can confirm that this is entirely untrue. Four ML/2SRM4 Jenny D going 150 KPH has, wait for it, 11 DHS - and that's if you have only 1 JJ. Also, this build has less than 10 seconds of fire before it totally overheats. Hell, that's worse heat efficiency than my 2A. On Caustic, you could literally alpha once in the caldera and be in the red.

So unless you have some mystery Jenny-D build I call shenanigans on this.

What are the weapons and loadouts of those top five? Do they have the option of boating more than they do? Do they boat the majority of their firepower, like stalkers/hunches/cats and centurions, while filling weight with weapons that have the lowest incidence of conflicting opportunity costs? We can't comment on the metrics you're looking at because you're very opaque in presenting them without showing them (which is a form of argumentative fallacy).

As for the jenner build, i'm not sure why it's loading JJs in the first place let alone alpha striking in the caldera. Mounting a single jet and running around in no cover lavaland alpha striking everywhere is indicative of poor skill, not a poor build.

[Doc Holliday]

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

What are the weapons and loadouts of those top five? Do they have the option of boating more than they do? Do they boat the majority of their firepower, like stalkers/hunches/cats and centurions, while filling weight with weapons that have the lowest incidence of conflicting opportunity costs? We can't comment on the metrics you're looking at because you're very opaque in presenting them without showing them (which is a form of argumentative fallacy).

As for the jenner build, i'm not sure why it's loading JJs in the first place let alone alpha striking in the caldera. Mounting a single jet and running around in no cover lavaland alpha striking everywhere is indicative of poor skill, not a poor build.

Mounting a single JJ is very useful on a Jenner. It's just enough to do the quick turns to put your opponent right in front of you.

[Shumabot]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

And you're ignoring the point I've made several times. If having weapons hit the same spot is such a huge problem, and weapon spread is the answer to all the problems... why are missiles far and away the most-complained-about weapon?

Because they have three times the sustained DPS per ton of the next best thing in the game. Three times. Spread and poor aim isn't all that important when you're dealing damage to all parts at once equal to what a comparably weighted weapon would do to a single area. That's ignoring the fact that they don't spread very much and point blanking someones CT is very easy to do.

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Mounting a single JJ is very useful on a Jenner. It's just enough to do the quick turns to put your opponent right in front of you.

Why am I jousting my opponent with a mech that can turn 90 degrees in half a second with amazing torso twist? I suppose that'd be useful in a light fight, but if they're chasing they probably have streaks and since I'm loading on alpha and don't have ECM thats an engagement I'm better off running from.

[Doc Holliday]

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Because they have three times the sustained DPS per ton of the next best thing in the game. Three times. Spread and poor aim isn't all that important when you're dealing damage to all parts at once equal to what a comparably weighted weapon would do to a single area. That's ignoring the fact that they don't spread very much and point blanking someones CT is very easy to do.

Nevertheless, the fact remains, as I've said before numerous times, this leaves simple weapon spread as not the answer. When you introduce it, you create other problems, exactly like what we have with missiles. But like I also posted numerous times (including in the previous post, which part you chose to ignore) having all weapon systems function alike is boring. The alternative is what we have, which is a great system. Does it need a bit more tweaking? Sure. But that's going to be true regardless of what your overall design is. If all the weapons function identically, then someone's going to complain that all weapons are too powerful because they can't avoid them, and someone else is going to complain that they're not powerful enough because they couldn't 1-shot someone in some specific situation. Perfect balance is impossible.

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Why am I jousting my opponent with a mech that can turn 90 degrees in half a second with amazing torso twist? I suppose that'd be useful in a light fight, but if they're chasing they probably have streaks and since I'm loading on alpha and don't have ECM thats an engagement I'm better off running from.

Because you can't get away from a RVN-3L in any mech in the game, and you need every advantage you can get. Hence, one JJ on a Jenner.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 26 February 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[Karr285]

MadcatX, on 07 January 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

But wouldn't the implementation of weapon spread remove the element of aiming to an extent? As mentioned before it would become spray and pray. We've already had that implemented once in the streakpult to an extent.

Ive seen this argument many times and that is no it would not. Why?
very simple It means that if you try and snap shoot you will probably miss, but if you actually Aim and drop your Cursor dead center and alpha, all your weapons will probably hit some may miss, but the damage will be spread out.

and as he said he only wants that to be in effect if you alpha or fire very quickly, but if you shoot 1 weapon it Will be accurate. This would also go back to maybe reducing the armour values back to TT and then a single AC 20 would be a devastating weapon again.Trying to dual ac20 while still effective wont be able to alpha 40 damage into 1 location making the ac20 cat useless since you would have to successive fire them to try and do 40 damage to one spot and there are better mechs out there for that.

Also this could bring back the possible NEED to have different weapons, "since I cant just alpha at x range maybe I should try and do long range damage at range med at med/close and close range damage since an alpha wont really be AS effective"

[Doc Holliday]

Karr285, on 26 February 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Ive seen this argument many times and that is no it would not. Why?
very simple It means that if you try and snap shoot you will probably miss, but if you actually Aim and drop your Cursor dead center and alpha, all your weapons will probably hit some may miss, but the damage will be spread out.

and as he said he only wants that to be in effect if you alpha or fire very quickly, but if you shoot 1 weapon it Will be accurate. This would also go back to maybe reducing the armour values back to TT and then a single AC 20 would be a devastating weapon again.Trying to dual ac20 while still effective wont be able to alpha 40 damage into 1 location making the ac20 cat useless since you would have to successive fire them to try and do 40 damage to one spot and there are better mechs out there for that.

Also this could bring back the possible NEED to have different weapons, "since I cant just alpha at x range maybe I should try and do long range damage at range med at med/close and close range damage since an alpha wont really be AS effective"

Which is all bunk, because as has been demonstrated and confirmed by Garth, going for max alpha is already not the most effective way to build a mech. Max alpha is only consistently effective against bad players. Against anyone else, you might get lucky now and then. The weakness in your gimp build will get you killed a lot more often than not.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 26 February 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Le0yo, on 26 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

true?

As "thruthful" as fictional gaming universe with described technological standards (and lack thereof) can be ...

Quote

I love how you quoted everything but the modern comparison I had made between the 2 batmans and every other damn reincarnation of past mediums that have had MASSIVE success without the need to follow some of the crap that came before

In which particular incarnation of "the" Batman (not his future versions, where it's not Bruce Wayne under the hood) was the premise abandonned that Batman is a masked vigilante whose millionaire parents were killed before his eyes at young age and now tries to fight crime with his high powered gadgets and superior athletic training (while slos being a technical and economic genius)? Even the slapstick Batman of the 60ies tv show didn't deviate from that.

So now tell me, why is it so unthinkable for you that a BattleMech - despite running with a fusion reactor and having synthetic muscles - should have highly inaccurate weapons .. at least if one actually wants a simulation of a gaming experience in accordance to the background / fluff (and not just the TT rules)!?

Quote

you only need to look at all the remakes to see how good this is. game designers learned this in the 90s thankfully when developers realized they did not need to follow a predecessor exactly. it can be a new game and not be limited by the rules of a board game what don't you understand??

Okay, so I guess the XBox Shadowrun fps actually took the franchise to the next level, since it's designers felt that deviating from basic premises didn't matter that much ... oh wait. ~smile~

Oh and btw. the PGI developers are actually following the direct predecessors, so no real evolution in terms of gameplay.

Quote

as for sim how can it be a true sim you would have to go full realism the maps and range would have to be absurd to even come close to modern weapons range we have missiles that do 2,500 km now.

See that's the point you continiously fail to understand: Missiles in our world have such ranges. Within the BattleTech universe the technology has degraded to a point where (virtaully all) missiles cannot reliably hit ranges farther than 1km and even pinpoint weapons that are mounted on mechs don't do better. And that's something you're obviously quite willing to take for granted, however the inaccuracy that is also part of the background the suddenly turns into "heresy" that defies the essence of what you deem "fun" as a game?! Sorry, that highly amuses me.

The "realism" needed for the kind of simulation I have been asking for is merely not the restrict ourselves to accepting part of the restrictions (combat ranges) but all of them ... and that would include (heavy) inaccuracy. And while I most certainly can see part of the argument about "skill" (and its potential gutting, when doing "it" wrong) I'm just intrigued by the expressed fears way before someone has actually tried making a game like that.

Quote

honestly let go of battletech and everything before see it as something new and let them build something great using the universe.

I guess you don't even see the contradiction there, right?
If I (or better PGI) let go of the BattleTech universe (see I'm constantly using "the BattleTech universe" not just BattleTech) I could as well drop the whole name and call it e.g. "Mecha Strike" and they are most certainly not actually using "the universe" by leaving the basics that shaped said universe behind.

[Karr285]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Which is all bunk, because as has been demonstrated and confirmed by Garth, going for max alpha is already not the most effective way to build a mech. Max alpha is only consistently effective against bad players. Against anyone else, you might lucky.

if that si true why are x4 ppc cata's so effective? Max alpha has always been more effective, not sure what game garth plays but its defiantly not his own.
game is littered with splatcats, ac20kats, 4-6ppc builds and if you say none of these are effective except vs bad players I wanna know what game you play too.