179 replies to this topic

[Applecrow]

zverofaust, on 14 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

...I mean not only have you somehow managed to clump games like Arma II (which isn't even a PVP game)...

And boom goes the dynamite.

[yamishan]

Kommisar, on 14 February 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

I'm sorry Yamishan; my hope was to add some levity. Didn't think anyone would actually take those ideas seriously.

lol and as u noticed i didnt really i had 2 separate points 1 its ridiculous 2 something for repair has been in previous games in the battletech uni so might stress on the "might" make it into this one is some way shape or form

[Zerethon]

Dr Killinger, on 14 February 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

While I don't agree with OP's premise, the AC/20 lasts about 5 seconds once you find an enemy as the premier brawler's weapon, it needs to be tougher imho.

The AC20 is not a Premier brawlers weapon, it's a strikers weapon or finisher.

A "Brawlers weapon" Is AC2/AC5/UAC5 backed up with medium lasers and sufficient ammo to cause continuous damage over a long period of time with the express purpose of a prolonged engagement.

And the AC20 itself is "Squishy as hell" -sic- because it takes up nearly as many crits as a gauss, meaning any solid damage hit to it with armor stripped is likely going to crit-roll and hit it on one try.

Try dropping an AC20 into a fast chassis (HBK4G + S260 for instance) with a couple light lasers and a couple tons of ammo and see how much more effective it is at hit and run versus stand-up knifefights and you'll understand it's value

[Furmansky]

zverofaust, on 14 February 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

Really? I mean not only have you somehow managed to clump games like Arma II (which isn't even a PVP game) and RO2, World of Tanks, BF3 and LoL, but you've somehow come to the conclusion that they're no more or less competitive than MWO?

Arma II no PVP? SERIOUSLY?
I honestly hope Sir you are kidding.
And why you pointing out about clumping those examples, are those games not competitive?
They are all different games, with different rules that governs them, but they all have competitive player base. So is my conclusion wrong? They are computer games, they are all competitive in one way or another? I don't understand what are you trying to tell me here? Is counterstrike more competitive cause fast eye and great reflexes count more, or is Arma where careful planning, tactics and coordination plays the key role? The question is what competitive gaming means for different people.

[Beo Vulf]

Bryan Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

You adapt by not boating LRMs. You adapt by staying in reasonable distance to your team. You adapt by calling out if you are getting attacked. You adapt by going after ECM mechs first or calling them out in chat. You adapt by bringing in some direct fire weaponry to at least fend off these pest.

The issue in MWO is that people give themselves too many reasons as to why they should have an easy time when they fail.

/Agree.

[Tahribator]

It's not random. You lose your armor = you lose your weapon. It's inevitable. If you're a competitive player, do not lose your armor and if you do treat that weapon as gone. (non-existing)Problem solved.

This is a fun aspect of the game and I'd hate to see it go because of "esports"(duh).

[zverofaust]

Furmansky, on 15 February 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Arma II no PVP? SERIOUSLY?
I honestly hope Sir you are kidding.

I'm sorry I must've missed the Arma 2 MLG tournaments over the years!

Quote

And why you pointing out about clumping those examples, are those games not competitive?

If you're going to feign ignorance (or maybe you actually are ignorant) I don't see the point of wasting my time.

Quote

They are computer games, they are all competitive in one way or another? I don't understand what are you trying to tell me here? Is counterstrike more competitive cause fast eye and great reflexes count more, or is Arma where careful planning, tactics and coordination plays the key role? The question is what competitive gaming means for different people.

Is chess more or less competitive than tic-tac-toe? Funny I don't remember IBM spending billions of dollars on a supercomputer with the sole purpose of challenging great Tic-Tac-Toe masters the world over.

Competitive games rely on consistency and predictability, a strict and fathomable and identifiable set of constants and limited variables that players can rely upon to always act the same and this is what fosters real competition. If one day the makers of CounterStrike decided "hey lets make bullet impacts do random things, like 10% chance it'll make you go blind or 15% chance it'll knock the weapon out of your hand or 20% chance a gunshot wound to the pinky will insta-kill you", that game would immediately become the worst game ever made.

And Arma2 isn't a competitive multiplayer shooter-simulator what are you smoking?

[Volthorne]

ZnSeventeen, on 14 February 2013 - 12:25 AM, said:

I am pretty sure he is playfully suggesting that he has bad luck in Battletech, with dice rolls. (In other words, he gets head capped a lot.)

Partially this, but also the fact that 1/36 is not actually as low as it sounds (roughly 2%, which is pretty high as far as random events go).

[Midosa Kaze]

Interesting topic. After having read the OP and all his posts in this thread up to this posting I don't agree with the ideas proposed. The idea that a weapon cannot be disabled permanently until the component is destroyed is strange. To me that's like saying you can't disable the gun on a tank without the turret flying off and if other games follow that, so be it, but I don't think it works.

Now it is obvious the OP is not asking for a complete removal of “dice rolls,” although he has protested about “randomness.” Even under his proposals he mentions nothing about the “dice roll” to determine whether the hit is a crit. Then there is the “dice roll” to see if it will be 1, 2, or 3 crits. After that there are the “dice rolls” to see where they land. However this is a system and the percentages are well documented on the forum, therefore it is not “arbitrary” as had been suggested.

There are ways to buffer certain weapons in your loadout and there are tactical ways to mitigate the damage while fighting. An ac/20 is a high risk weapon, I know as I love it on the HBK-4G, but “a shred of damage” to it will not disable it. It still has 10hp. The developers have already stated they are looking over the hp of all items.

To me the current system of item destruction adds competiveness, strategy, and tactical thinking to the game with the critical hit system (which by its very title negates the accusation of arbitrary). It is obvious the OP disagrees.

Oh and ShackTac seem to have lots of fun in their non-competitive, no pvp, Arma II.

[One Medic Army]

I can't believe this is still going...

Edited by One Medic Army, 15 February 2013 - 04:43 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

So if I get this straight, your saying you like MWO, but want it to be more like Call of duty.

[zverofaust]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 15 February 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

So if I get this straight

You didn't. Try harder.

[Furmansky]

zverofaust, on 15 February 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

I'm sorry I must've missed the Arma 2 MLG tournaments over the years!



If you're going to feign ignorance (or maybe you actually are ignorant) I don't see the point of wasting my time.



Is chess more or less competitive than tic-tac-toe? Funny I don't remember IBM spending billions of dollars on a supercomputer with the sole purpose of challenging great Tic-Tac-Toe masters the world over.

Competitive games rely on consistency and predictability, a strict and fathomable and identifiable set of constants and limited variables that players can rely upon to always act the same and this is what fosters real competition. If one day the makers of CounterStrike decided "hey lets make bullet impacts do random things, like 10% chance it'll make you go blind or 15% chance it'll knock the weapon out of your hand or 20% chance a gunshot wound to the pinky will insta-kill you", that game would immediately become the worst game ever made.

And Arma2 isn't a competitive multiplayer shooter-simulator what are you smoking?

Dude calling me an ignorant? Pointing some cheesy smart definitions about consistency and predictability? As you said I won't be wasting your time, I wasted to much of mine already... And man what I smoke is not your problem, but whatever you smoke must have really bad influence on you. You can always go play Starcraft or CS in MLG if your pro gaming brain can't adapt to a fraction unpredictability. But don't think competitive gaming is only MLG or any ESL cause I was playing games competitively long before those were formed.

[Pihb]

You know that atlas with an ac 20? It goes like 53 kph give or take a little. It is slow. If you are alone, don't fight it. If you have to fight it, use these things called tactics.

http://en.wikipedia....ilitary_tactics

Take a look at that, it's a good start.

[The Warspite]

What does the OP have to do with the title?

[ConnorSinclair]

Add hardpoints to fix the K2.

Gauss and AC20 reset.

OH LOOK EASIEST FIX EVAR!

[Vahnn]

Tennex, on 13 February 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

its like a on/off light switch. either you are very effective or useless. and this is decided before the match begins. wheres the strategy in that ?

This is the main annoyance in the game for me. I've played games where the entire enemy team just happened to have no ECM, and my team just happened to have a Catapult LRM boat. The enemy was crushed absolutely and we lost not a single 'mech. This scenario plays out this way almost every time. And in the reverse situation, the enemy will crush my team with almost no losses.

Not such a big deal, as it's to be expected with the nature of the modules, but since your load out your 'mech before you even know what you're up against, and once in match, there's no workaround, and again, due to the 'binary' nature of these situations, you're either unstoppable in your ability to obliterate the enemy or you're completely useless and a wasted spot in your team.

The AC/20 is very powerful, and it's offset by its huge slot requirement (often taking up every slot in a segment of your 'mech), and due to the RNG (random number generator) present within the damage formula of MWO, a single shot can completely cripple the rest of your game. It's frustrating.

That said, while it's indeed quite frustrating to lose your main damage output... I still see the merit of the system in that it forces you to plan ahead and also adjust your in-game tactics for just this situation (destruction of your most powerful weapon). For example, I just purchased a Wang hero 'mech. That AC/20 dishes out some punishment, and has earned me a lot of CB due to kills and destroyed components. But losing that weapon is a HUGE loss to me, and happens quite often since the arm is huge, and as soon as anyone sees that skin, they know to take off my right arm. It happened within seconds of combat about 5 games in a row. But...

I learned. I adapted. I changed my strategy. Instead of jumping into combat as if I'm piloting a 'Phract or running circles like in my Jenner... I learned a new way to play. I hang back and let the bigger guys get into combat first. Then I use my speed to jump in during fights to hit guys when their backs are turned and never get hit in the first place. Or when taking fire is unavoidable, I've learned to turn my torso between shots to keep my prized arm hidden from the enemy, using my worthless left arm as a meat shield. I've also become adept at peaking only the right half of my 'mech from behind cover to make quick shots and then retreating, leaving myself a target for only a second while getting off huge hits on the enemy.

Not to mention additional planning such as leaving myself decent laser weapons to fall back, etc.

Sorry, I've been drinking and I know this post is getting off topic.

tl;dr: It sucks, OP, but working around these faults is the fun of the game. There are ways to get around the RNG nature of component destruction. (But you are still right!)

[Renthrak]

In response to the OP, I do agree with you, to a point. The binary nature of component destruction is irritating. The fact that it operates at 100% effectiveness until completely destroyed is a problem. Fortunately, the devs intend to implement damage effects for the final game. Sooner or later, damage to a piece of equipment -will- reduce its usefulness, likely including actuators and the gyro in addition to regular items. I would expect that once this mechanic is in, they will adjust the hit points assigned to different items so that they are more difficult to completely destroy, because inflicting damage to an item will actually do something before the point of destruction. So, your suggested 'Analog Damage' system is already a planned feature.

As far as the random 'critical hit' issue, I think it's a necessary evil. Unless each component has its own hitbox, there doesn't seem to be a way to represent damage to internal equipment when armor is breached, aside from random hits to critical slots when a location is hit. Essentially, we either accept a little randomness here, or we can't have the ability to damage internals at all.

[FrostPaw]

I think perhaps it would be better if short range brawling weapons were more resilient, it's much easier to hit a weapon location up close. But that is the range you have to be at to engage with the weapon.

[Thunder Lips Express]

i don't get it