1063 replies to this topic

[Doc Holliday]

Vapor Trail, on 26 February 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

We don't know they're not going to implement something like this or not. If the Devs decide something like this is warranted, then they'll implement it. Their decision.

As someone else posted, it's not gonna happen. If they were going to do something like this, it would have happened long ago.

Vapor Trail, on 26 February 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

The position may be obviously unassailable. We may be wasting our time.
But if we are, what does that say about what you're doing?

I'm currently unable to work due to health reasons, but I'm also boycotting the game right now because of broken ECM. I got nothing productive to do with my time anyway.

[HRR Mary]

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.

As Insanity pointed out, tossing around vague numbers because you are "in the know" is not exactly helping the discussion. If you could actually share some real statistics, that we can all rely on, maybe this thread would not derive in a "told you! did not!" argument.

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

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.

Quoting the FULL sentence would help. Hence providing much more information :

Roland said:

The heat involved with boating large arrays of medium lasers is really a non-issue at the moment. For instance, on my Jenner I can run 4 medium lasers, AND two SRM4's.. and basically run around at 150 kph, and fire all day. Certainly, I cannot literally fire as fast as the weapons recycle, forever.. but I can fire enough to do a huge amount of damage, and then I can just chill out for a bit while they cool down.

The build he uses is the same as mine, and I have the same observations : I CAN fire all day, with some lull to cool down (usually 3-4 seconds), which is exactly what a light pilot is about "hit and run", without adding Heat sinks other than the ones in the engine. Sure if I get into an heavy engagement, I have to watch my heat, but since there is no penalty for running hot, I can continue to do so all along the match.

Garth, you just sounded rude in that post, and added more fuel to the belief that PGI/IGP are not totally knowledgeable in the workings of their own game. I do hope you'll prove me wrong.

Lastly, Insanity has been playing MW4 to the extent he proved the then FASA Interactive Dev team some bugs and flaws that they were denying. If you have doubts, contact TJ "Paingod" Wagner (I hear he is making his own Giant Robot game), and get info. You might want, at least, to check out if some ideas are not worth looking into.

[javathejat]

I suggest you practice. A LOT.

Or

get minecraft and have fun, squarehead..

[Zyllos]

I have to agree with Mary and Insanity here. While I was not around for the hayday of the older MechWarrior games, but I can easily see that they had the exact same problems as MWO does now. The game will always have heat/damage balancing issues because weapon convergence is just too great.

[Shumabot]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Except you were blatantly lying, and I wasn't wrong. You're pathetic. This is my last response to your BS. I'm done feeding your worthless trolls.

Where and how was I lying? Oh, I wasn't? Right. I wasn't.

You're just angry that your goldrage at someone elses goldrage isn't being taken seriously, because you're honestly no better than he is, and can't find a basis for your arguments that are founded in anything but "Stahp, I don like it, wahh".

Quote

I'm currently unable to work due to health reasons, but I'm also boycotting the game right now because of broken ECM. I got nothing productive to do with my time anyway.

That explains the obsessive first person trolling on your part.

Edited by Shumabot, 27 February 2013 - 06:40 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

I have to agree with Mary and Insanity here. While I was not around for the hayday of the older MechWarrior games, but I can easily see that they had the exact same problems as MWO does now. The game will always have heat/damage balancing issues because weapon convergence is just too great.

The game will always have heat/damage balancing issues regardless. If you try to fix it by destroying weapon convergence, you merely introduce another set of problems.

That's simple facts.

The balancing you're pushing for is to have all weapon systems alike. If they took your advice, they would keep subtly reducing the differences between weapon systems until it hardly mattered. It would leave the game a lot more bland and boring.

Thankfully, PGI wasn't so stupid as to put in crap like that.

[Shumabot]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

I have to agree with Mary and Insanity here. While I was not around for the hayday of the older MechWarrior games, but I can easily see that they had the exact same problems as MWO does now. The game will always have heat/damage balancing issues because weapon convergence is just too great.

Those issues have nothing to do with weapon convergence. That doesn't even make sense. None of the overpowered or underutilized weapons in this game are so because of convergence. That's a phantom boogeyman. This thread is no better than the thread that wants the catapults twist reduced because it would "balance it". This is just people falsely identifying problems and contributing solutions that do not address those problems.

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Thankfully, PGI wasn't so stupid as to put in crap like that.

I would debate that.

[Tombstoner]

Doc Holliday, on 26 February 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

So nice to see people still wasting their time trying to solve a nonexistent problem.

You already know they're never going to implement something like this because it's unwanted and unnecessary, yet you persist in beating your head on a brick wall. I'd think you'd tire of it eventually.

Just because you can't see the problem doesn't make it nonexistent. the OP has brought up a valid point about the differences between TT and the current game build. Its not a waist to actively participate in a beta with constructive feed back. i can agree with your sentiment that no one listening at this point. still one can hope.

It's presumptuous to think its unwanted and unnecessary.... what if the game started with the OP's ideas from the get go. would you be QQing for I want all my weapons to hit the same location when i link fire ( no skill ) so i can min max all my damage on just the CT vs carfull aiming and placement for each shot. if your worried that a brawler would just close in to fast and your now vulnerable. you can just start spamming your weapons as well. with the same chance of hitting.

What the OP has proposed is an excellent compromise/addition between TT and FPS/SIM aspects of the game. it opens up more opportunities for additional content and reasons to spend money. think using gold from WOT. The TT has novice, average, veteran, elite skills. what if i could spend $5 to have an elite pilot with 50% reduced COF? its not pay to win since you can level the pilot anyway. its just going to take longer. thus just a quality of life issue.

Avatar based skill's that reduce the cone of fire. maintenance condition of the mech.
based on the avitars mechanic skills. both are elements from the lore that are missing and would add substantial debth to the game. just by taking a small step back from FFS to a reasonable hybridization of TT hit locations.

[Doc Holliday]

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Just because you can't see the problem doesn't make it nonexistent. the OP has brought up a valid point about the differences between TT and the current game build. Its not a waist to actively participate in a beta with constructive feed back. i can agree with your sentiment that no one listening at this point. still one can hope.

And just because he sees a bogeyman around every corner doesn't mean they're there.

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

It's presumptuous to think its unwanted and unnecessary.... what if the game started with the OP's ideas from the get go. would you be QQing for I want all my weapons to hit the same location when i link fire ( no skill ) so i can min max all my damage on just the CT vs carfull aiming and placement for each shot. if your worried that a brawler would just close in to fast and your now vulnerable. you can just start spamming your weapons as well. with the same chance of hitting.

With the exception of a few things like ECM being too powerful, the game is working just fine. It's not presumptuous at all to think such broad sweeping changes proposed by Insanity are unwanted and unnecessary. It's far more presumptuous of him and you to assume you have all the answers.

If the game had the OP's ideas from the get-go, I wouldn't be playing it and neither would you, because it'd be pitiful and probably would never have made it to closed beta. In fact, how do you know they didn't already try his ideas at some point during alpha and discard them because they're stupid?

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

What the OP has proposed is an excellent compromise/addition between TT and FPS/SIM aspects of the game. it opens up more opportunities for additional content and reasons to spend money. think using gold from WOT. The TT has novice, average, veteran, elite skills. what if i could spend $5 to have an elite pilot with 50% reduced COF? its not pay to win since you can level the pilot anyway. its just going to take longer. thus just a quality of life issue.

Have you ever heard of a children's book called "Hiram's Red shirt"? It's a book where part of his shirt gets ripped off. So he cuts a piece off another part of the shirt to fix that. Then he has to cut another piece off another part of his shirt to fix the second problem. And on and on it goes, until his shirt looks like crap and it's still missing part. That's what the OP's proposal would do. It doesn't eliminate any problems, it merely moves the problems to another area, and for the worse. Your post here only confirms that.

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Avatar based skill's that reduce the cone of fire. maintenance condition of the mech.
based on the avitars mechanic skills. both are elements from the lore that are missing and would add substantial debth to the game. just by taking a small step back from FFS to a reasonable hybridization of TT hit locations.

And if you do something like that, you may as well be playing Mechwarrior as a regular run-of-the-mill MMORPG where you click buttons on a hotbar and watch your mech fire. The whole point of a shooter is that the skills are NOT avatar-based, they're player based.

Let me put it to you plainly: you're playing the wrong game. You're not looking for a shooter at all.

So why don't you quit grasping at straws here trying to support a proposition that doesn't have a leg to stand on, and go find a game that's more your speed?

[Dan Nashe]

The thing is, if I fire an ac 10 a medium laser and a ppc, I will be a lot less effective than someone who fires 5 medium lasers because the 5 medium lasers will always hit the exact same spot. Ergo, boating. The other weapons will not because of different travel times and because after the first shot they will be chain fired and therefore be based on three different aiming snapshots.

Ideally it should be a measure of skill that all your weapons hit one location, not just a consequence of boating. What the OP wants to see is only some randomization IF you boat and alpha strike. If you chain fire every shot will stil go exacly where you aim it. The good pilots will still be able to fire six ppcs every 3 seconds with pinpoint accuracy as long as you wait 0.5 seconds between shots. However this means that it will take skill to hit one location with all six shots. And as everyone knows 30 damage to one location means a lot more than 10 damage to five locations.

The solution could be as simple as every shot changes your cone of fire by 5 degrees, with a starting point of 0... and grouped weapons firing together would have the cone apply to the entire volley (the numbers are arbitrary don't argue those, and the game would have to calcutate and apply the 25 or 5 x 1.05^4 or whatever cone to the shot but can be coded .. and Im sure macros that *push* 1-6 simultaneously can be dealt with by forcing a sequence). In other words if you fire six ppcs at once it would fire like a shotgun, but if you pull the trigger six times, it will still be like six shots from a high precision rifle. But it brings back the advantage of an ac 20 always doing its damage to one location


Personally I predict that as player skill increases and clan weapons are added' they will have to double center torso armor (only ct) to make blowing off arms meaningful to the growing number of players who can reliably hit what they're aiming at with boated alphas once every three seconds.

There's a reason ML 40s are broken OP vs 8 ml 5s in TT and similar logic can apply in MWO. Most pilots (and real soldiers) can't place 8 bullets in the same hole on a moving target at 200 meters. And this makes the game more interesting if that is a function of real skill and not weapon boating.

Edited by DanNashe, 27 February 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[8RoundsRapid]

As I stated much, much earlier in this thread, I like Insanity's idea and fully support it.

However, I feel that at this point, this entire thread is a waste as the dev's clearly are not going to even consider this idea, let alone make changes in their schedule to test it. So we should move on.

*shrugs

Not really worth getting your panties all up in a bunch you guys, but whatever, this is the internet, carry on...

Edited by 8RoundsRapid, 27 February 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

I finally figured out what the real problem is here; why people like the OP keep pushing for these changes.

The problem is that MWO is not the game they want - and worse, the game they want doesn't exist yet, and never has - even though it should have been one of the first MechWarrior video games made, and should have had a few sequels.

What they want is a Mech sim , NOT a Mech shooter.


They want a game where they ride in a simulated mech cockpit and give commands and watch the mech carry out the commands in real time. They want to designate the target and which location the mech should shoot at, then have the mech actually carry out the shooting. In short, they want a combat system that works a lot more like Eve.

That would be a fun game, and I'd probably play it.

But this is where cold hard reality comes in. MechWarrior Online is not that game, and never will be. MWO is, at its core, a shooter, not a sim. In a shooter, you don't issue commands and watch an avatar carry them out. You take virtual actions yourself and (hopefully) see them carried out instantly and precisely according to the input you provided. Any layers between your actual physical actions and the actions on-screen should be as transparent as possible; as much as possible it should feel like the player is actually doing those actions. That's how a shooter works. As soon as you start making those layers visible (ie. by having a mech carry out instructions) it's no longer a real shooter, and something else entirely.

Unfortunately, this leaves those players "out in the cold" so to speak, and unable to play the game they really want.

I feel that pain; there's a number of games I'd love to play, only I can't because they've not been created yet.

It's understandable why they'd seek to change this game into something that more resembles what they really want. But word to the wise here - even if you got the proposed changes you're seeking at the moment, this game would still not satisfy your desire for a true mech sim. So please, quit trying to twist this game into something it cannot and will never be.

[Zyllos]

Look, the way I see it is this:

Can we agree that the armor values are a direct relation to the CBT, except at 2x the value (32 points per ton instead of 16)?

Based on that, we can agree that then the chance to hit locations was the factor in why the CT can hold more than the LT/RT, than the LL/RL, than the LA/RA (CT had the most because it was the most hit location based on dice rolls) in CBT/TT?

Since MWO has the same based armor values, but no way to add randomization (other than Splitting Arm/Torso convergence locations only during torso movement, lasers being DoT) certain locations will take disportionally more damage than other locations because everyone can converge their weaponry onto a single location, correct?

This is the fatal flaw, and thus is included on why heat/damage/range/ect is incorrect for every weapon and will always be because certain locations where ment to take hits, even when not aiming to hit those locations.

This translation is causing many issues in the game. And to fix this issue is to reduce the amount of convergence, or increase the effort on the players part to allow them to hit all their weapons onto a single location.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 February 2013 - 09:24 AM.

[Zyllos]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

... What they want is a Mech sim , NOT a Mech shooter....

While that is mostly correct, we want a mech sim, not a shooter, PGI has said they are making this a mech simulator. Never has PGI said they are just making a Battletech based shooter.

If they said that, they would not have the following they would have now.

Unless, of course, you are insinuating that PGI purposely said "MWO will be a mech sim" and then changed due to either being too hard, time constraints, ect?

[Dan Nashe]

You're not wrong to suggest that some people wnant this game to be something other than it is. But when the OP is blatantly stealing a suggestion from most modern shooters (cone of accuracy. Rof affecting cone size. Larger burst fire cones) you can't say "that's dumb this is a shooter."

And I totally agree people get far too invested in their way on the internet when they start demanding "implement my change or we're doomed." But still, the OP makes some good points worth seriously considering and some good observations about the game and his actual post is very reasonable despite the title. :-)

[Doc Holliday]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Unless, of course, you are insinuating that PGI purposely said "MWO will be a mech sim" and then changed due to either being too hard, time constraints, ect?

They're in this primarily to make money. Of course they're going to call it whatever it takes to get the most players.

DanNashe, on 27 February 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

You're not wrong to suggest that some people wnant this game to be something other than it is. But when the OP is blatantly stealing a suggestion from most modern shooters (cone of accuracy. Rof affecting cone size. Larger burst fire cones) you can't say "that's dumb this is a shooter."

And I totally agree people get far too invested in their way on the internet when they start demanding "implement my change or we're doomed." But still, the OP makes some good points worth seriously considering and some good observations about the game and his actual post is very reasonable despite the title. :-)

And all those modern shooters would be a lot better if the programmers weren't lazy and took the time to ACTUALLY simulate recoil. Cone of fire is a lazyman's "fix" and nothing but a gimmick. It makes games less realistic and less fun, not more.

Most players don't know what properly simulated recoil on modern weapons is like in a video game, because they've never seen it. It really is too bad the creators of the old Tactical Ops mod for the original UT didn't have the funding to get their mod well-known. They DID properly simulate recoil in it, over 10 years ago, and it was good, and fun. All the players I introduced to it thoroughly enjoyed it, and as a result, feel more or less the same way as I do about cone of fire in modern shooters.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Zyllos]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

They're in this primarily to make money. Of course they're going to call it whatever it takes to get the most players.


And all those modern shooters would be a lot better if the programmers weren't lazy and took the time to ACTUALLY simulate recoil. Cone of fire is a lazyman's "fix" and nothing but a gimmick. It makes games less realistic and less fun, not more.

Ok, but can you agree with my post above this one? They have a direct translation from CBT without the randomization mechanics of firing weapons. This if a HUGE flaw.

[Xyroc]

This thread has been going well over a month can it PLEASE be shut down

[Doc Holliday]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Ok, but can you agree with my post above this one? They have a direct translation from CBT without the randomization mechanics of firing weapons. This if a HUGE flaw.

Practically none of it is direct translation any more. They've altered virtually everything as needed to make it work properly in a FPS.

[P e n u m b r a]