1063 replies to this topic

[Shumabot]

Quote

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.

I'm not actually part of this argument. I came in when I saw garth post and some dude was talking about making a true sim. You asked why SRMs are used so much despite grouping and I answered that it was because they do a ludicrous amount of damage, despite their spread. The LBX spreads and is distinctly worse than the regular ac10 because of it. This is despite its superior range and new crit functionality. Spread doesn't make something good or bad.

Quote

But like I also posted numerous times (including in the previous post, which part you chose to ignore) is that having all weapon systems function alike is boring. The alternative is what we have, which is a great system.

I'm not part of a group that wants homogeneity in all weapons. I don't actually care about your argument.

Quote

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.

Idealistic balance doesn't exist except insofar as we want to reach a specific end goal. Your argument is a strawman.

Quote

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.

I'll take that JJ for another heat sink to do my intended role better, thank you. I'm not going to spend tonnage fighting an impossibility. I'll let my team with its own streaks do that for me.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I'm not sure if you're aware of this. You really, really sound like you aren't.

Nice way of directly going ad hominem ... sort of the direct q.e.d. of parts of the text you just quoted. As for the rest: Try harder with your flames. ~yawn~

[Shumabot]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Nice way of directly going ad hominem ... sort of the direct q.e.d. of parts of the text you just quoted. As for the rest: Try harder with your flames. ~yawn~

Nah, you get the exact amount of consideration that your ideas and opinions deserve. This thread is 37 pages of wasteland, you aren't pulling it out of that with your calls to turn the game into something with no logical basis in reality, nor any appreciable method of being realized.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 February 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Karr285, on 26 February 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.

Sniper weapons are only as effective against you as you let them be. Learn to use cover. I know how effective all those builds are. I've done them. I'm usually at or near the top of my team in kills and damage, but that's when I run a properly balanced mech, and rarely when I run a cheese boat build. I do have a lot of fun with my K2 2x AC20. But like all cheese builds, it has huge weaknesses. It's extremely short range, and extremely slow. I rarely get as many kills as I feel I should, because you just can't overcome those weaknesses. It's fun. But general effectiveness is low. Splatcats have even less effective range. Good luck hitting anything with more than a small percentage of your missiles at more than 100 meters.

[Shumabot]

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 get lucky now and then. The weakness in your gimp build will get you killed a lot more often than not.

Garth hasn't demonstrated anything that I've seen. He's talked about things, but has yet to demonstrate. Given that he's made plainly fallacious statements in the past and loves strawmen I hesitate to really take the party line as godspoken truth here.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 February 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[Karr285]

yea sniper weapons are awesome, i guess you have never played against a team with 2 x4 ppc jumpers and a 4ppc stalker with 2 atlas' for brawl backup, 12 ppc's kill anything that decides to even try to get a visual on them, you dont even have time for a missile lock since you will die if you try and maintain said lock.

[Doc Holliday]

Karr285, on 26 February 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

yea sniper weapons are awesome, i guess you have never played against a team with 2 x4 ppc jumpers and a 4ppc stalker with 2 atlas' for brawl backup, 12 ppc's kill anything that decides to even try to get a visual on them, you dont even have time for a missile lock since you will die if you try and maintain said lock.

So don't give them an easy shot. It's not hard.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

The only time I discuss TT vs VG is when people use TT as the basis for some absurd change to MWO.

So now that I have told you more than half a dozen times that my angle is not coming from the TT, when will you start to let that part go?

Quote

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.

Okay, then let me ask you the follwoing: Did you ever compare any of the Star Wars games with the movies / novelizations?

Quote

I critique the game on its own, based on what makes a fun video game.

Which is perfectly okay with me. But now I have to (kinda) repeat a previous question: Just for a second think someone came up with inaccuracy (not necessarily by what you obviously consider "nogo": cone of fire) as game mechanic by design. Would you say that it is absolutely impossible to create a "fun" game with such a paradigm?

[Doc Holliday]

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Garth hasn't demonstrated anything that I've seen. He's talked about things, but has yet to demonstrate. Given that he's made plainly fallacious statements in the past and loves strawmen I hesitate to really take the party line as godspoken truth here.

First, I apologize for making that post confusing. It should read like this: As has been demonstrated (and confirmed by Garth)...

Second, no one else has demonstrated or confirmed anything to the contrary. At this point, I'll take his word over all the rubbish I've heard. Especially seeing as how his statement coincides with what I've observed and tested myself.

[M4NTiC0R3X]

Edited by M4NTiC0R3X, 26 February 2013 - 03:00 PM.

[Karr285]

you really dont play this game at all, since Apha is better can be seen on a daily basis. once you are in range and have the heat who doesnt alpha? what is the downside? heck atlas with 3 srm6 ac20 and 2 lasers alpha ALL THE TIME and absolutely obliterate people. sure long med and short is cool and all but when you CAN alpha you WILL alpha and anyone who says otherwise is either not being true to themselves or a liar.

[Doc Holliday]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

So now that I have told you more than half a dozen times that my angle is not coming from the TT, when will you start to let that part go?

I apologize. I was assuming the "inaccuracy" argument came from a TT perspective. Could have saved yourself a lot of time and bother by explaining your angle in the first place.

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Okay, then let me ask you the follwoing: Did you ever compare any of the Star Wars games with the movies / novelizations?

No, not really. I briefly played SW Battlefront, but it's been years. I vaguely recall shooting droids but that's about it.

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 February 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Which is perfectly okay with me. But now I have to (kinda) repeat a previous question: Just for a second think someone came up with inaccuracy (not necessarily by what you obviously consider "nogo": cone of fire) as game mechanic by design. Would you say that it is absolutely impossible to create a "fun" game with such a paradigm?

Absolutely. There's plenty of games out there that employ that mechanic and they all suck. UT (the original, from '99) is still better than them all. Why? Because it uses different, unique mechanics for different weapons. It has some weapons that use a couple different styles of cone fire, as well as weapons that lob, and weapons that are very precise. That's what keeps it fun and interesting. I've hated pure cone-of-fire systems since I first encountered them in Counterstrike. I think they're the most ridiculous thing ever introduced to shooters of any kind.

[Shumabot]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

First, I apologize for making that post confusing. It should read like this: As has been demonstrated (and confirmed by Garth)...

Second, no one else has demonstrated or confirmed anything to the contrary. At this point, I'll take his word over all the rubbish I've heard. Especially seeing as how his statement coincides with what I've observed and tested myself.

Garth has only confirmed that the "top 5 mechs" (For damage? Win rates? Kills? Score? What groups are determining this? Is this high level play, or aggregate full community? What patch? What maps are they doing this on?) use "three or more weapon systems". Something that almost every mech in the game can't not do due to how the hardpoint system works.

That's a meaningless and loaded statement without context and clarification, and the purported statistics are likely not even legitimately tracked given how their samples probably work. All this in the context of a hyperbolic and loaded series of arguments in a thread that lacks the common sense and game design skills of an old shoe.

I'm gonna go with observable logic and math, rather than the common sense of a community that can't even agree that SRMs are overpowered and that the TT values made for a bad tabletop game and an unflappably bad multiplayer videogame, and that every time this game moves farther away from them it gets better.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 February 2013 - 01:56 PM.

[Karr285]

lol, I guess the millions of people worldwide that love and keep playing those cone of fire fps games are all wrong and you are right.

[Doc Holliday]

Karr285, on 26 February 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

you really dont play this game at all, since Apha is better can be seen on a daily basis. once you are in range and have the heat who doesnt alpha? what is the downside? heck atlas with 3 srm6 ac20 and 2 lasers alpha ALL THE TIME and absolutely obliterate people. sure long med and short is cool and all but when you CAN alpha you WILL alpha and anyone who says otherwise is either not being true to themselves or a liar.

Um yeah, everyone alpha strikes, at least now and then. That's completely different from boating weapons and building mechs around maximizing alpha strikes which is what the discussion is about. But even assuming you had a valid point, I can chain-fire 6 PPCs in half a second, which is not an alpha strike yet has virtually the same effect.

[Doc Holliday]

Karr285, on 26 February 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

lol, I guess the millions of people worldwide that love and keep playing those cone of fire fps games are all wrong and you are right.

Yep. Lots of people like lots of things that suck. Popularity doesn't make something good. It only makes it popular. Why do you think governments don't run by pure democracy? Why do you think game developers don't just make polls for all their game features? Popular opinion matters, but it's certainly not the definitive way to judge anything (other than popular opinion), and absolutely not the best way to judge quality.

[Shumabot]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

I apologize. I was assuming the "inaccuracy" argument came from a TT perspective. Could have saved yourself a lot of time and bother by explaining your angle in the first place.


No, not really. I briefly played SW Battlefront, but it's been years. I vaguely recall shooting droids but that's about it.


Absolutely. There's plenty of games out there that employ that mechanic and they all suck. UT (the original, from '99) is still better than them all. Why? Because it uses different, unique mechanics for different weapons. It has some weapons that use a couple different styles of cone fire, as well as weapons that lob, and weapons that are very precise. That's what keeps it fun and interesting. I've hated pure cone-of-fire systems since I first encountered them in Counterstrike. I think they're the most ridiculous thing ever introduced to shooters of any kind.

They simulate the actual effect of firing a gun, they're hardly ridiculous.

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

Yep. Lots of people like lots of things that suck. Popularity doesn't make something good. It only makes it popular. Why do you think governments don't run by pure democracy? Why do you think game developers don't just make polls for all their game features? Popular opinion matters, but it's certainly not the definitive way to judge anything (other than popular opinion), and absolutely not the best way to judge quality.

You do realize you're making the opposite argumentative fallacy, that you alone can arbitrate what does and does not make a game good because you can "trust your own council". Thats no better and while your arguments are a lot better phrased than his are they don't really make any more sense, especially since you seem to contradict yourself when it's an occasion of coning that you enjoy.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 February 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

No, not really. I briefly played SW Battlefront, but it's been years. I vaguely recall shooting droids but that's about it.

Then let me rephrase it: Have you ever made comparisons between games and universes of franchises with (more or less) well known background premises? Doesn't matter which game genre we're talking of.

Side note: I do recall that Activision once planned to give protective force fields to BattleMechs in a MechWarrior game. The very idea caused outrage (ofc partially because the TT rules don't know something like that, but at the same time such a force field would have been against the universe's premises, which - at least to me - was far more serious).

Quote

Absolutely. There's plenty of games out there that employ that mechanic and they all suck. UT (the original, from '99) is still better than them all. Why? Because it uses different, unique mechanics for different weapons. It has some weapons that use a couple different styles of cone fire, as well as weapons that lob, and weapons that are very precise. That's what keeps it fun and interesting. I've hated pure cone-of-fire systems since I first encountered them in Counterstrike. I think they're the most ridiculous thing ever introduced to shooters of any kind.

I'm a bit confused here, since you're again focussing on "cone of fire" and even there seems to be some contradiction:

Possible or impossible to create a game with inaccuracy as part of the game design?

[Karr285]

biggest issue here isnt whether Im right or wrong or you are right or wrong its the game is beta, we have been testing this pin point accuracy crap for months, personally id like to see the game with a cone of fire (or something similar) for even only 2 weeks and see what the community thinks and does.

but why bother testing right? obviously its a terrible idea to test something that nobody here has done in this game.

Edited by Karr285, 26 February 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

They simulate the actual effect of firing a gun, they're hardly ridiculous.

No. No they don't. Not at all. They don't simulate that any more than Super Mario does. The only people who think it's anything remotely like real guns are people who know next to nothing about real guns. What it really is, is a lazy programmer's way of disguising the fact that they don't have a clue how to actually simulate real guns.

Shumabot, on 26 February 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

You do realize you're making the opposite argumentative fallacy, that you alone can arbitrate what does and does not make a game good because you can "trust your own council". Thats no better and while your arguments are a lot better phrased than his are they don't really make any more sense, especially since you seem to contradict yourself when it's an occasion of coning that you enjoy.

No, I'm taking the stance that I'm a better judge of the quality and actual fun-factor of a video game than most players. Just like everyone else does. Unlike most of those people though, I at least give fairly well-founded explanations for my ideas and opinions.