468 replies to this topic

[Pht]

blinkin, on 03 April 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

--^^so it breaks but isn't broken. is this an homage to Toaism?

I have posted that It is "broken" in the sense that I explained (which is clear even in your OWN post); all gaming systems at some point have to stop adding rules.

I have not posted that it is "broken" in the way that I presumed you meant when you used the word "broken" - "does not work at all," and I even covered the possibility that said presumption might not have been true.

Quote

--^^so it breaks like all games do but everything works perfectly fine when it breaks? i was under the foolish assumption that you used the basic english definition of break: e : to render inoperable <broke his watch>
http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/break
none of the other definitions seem to relate in any way but feel free to look.

I defined exactly and clearly what I meant by "broken." You even quoted said definition in your post that I'm replying to here.

Quote

--^^this defeinition is completely useless 99.99% of games imitate something. is the Zelda series a simulator, because it imitates sword play?

Zelda was not built with the purpose in mind of simulating sword play.

----
I see you're still copping out and refusing to discuss what parts of the TT system are broken ... and apparently by ANY definition of broken.

I suppose that's easier than having to admit you don't know what you're talking about and having everyone realize that they shouldn't listen to you on the topic.
----

Quote

--^^no you just claim that "If you didn't mean the same thing (and your previous posts give a context seem to indicate that you didn't) than you have attributed to me that I had said that the TT combat system doesn't function (in part or in whole) as it was designed to function; or perhaps that it doesn't (in part or in whole) function as a combat gaming system - both meanings which I have never agreed with on these forums or anywhere else."
--so it isn't perfect but it never fails

Nowhere in your quote of me here have I said that "it never fails," either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence of my words.

I suppose you could try and stuff that meaning into this quote, though, even though it doesn't fit.

Quote

--^^this would be because good ideas can come from anywhere and i never said that the whole of everything TT was broken. there are parts that could be useful in this or many other games. it doesn't have to be a simple binary all of TT or none of TT. we can use SOME, the parts that fit in and work well while abandoning the parts we don't like.

... and even where I posted with the presumption that you might have meant that the TT was completely broken, I STILL left the option open that you might not have meant it that way.

"parts we don't like" ... Moving the goal posts? "Some parts of it are broken" now becomes "some parts we don't like?"

Quote

--^^just because they intentionally broke it, does not mean it is any less broken.

Ok, so, you think they should have never built any bad mechs on purpose, for any reason... and if something's actually better than something else... that's broken too... because, I guess, being better at something is "bad" ,,,?

Quote

--^^yeah just those few things like to hit rolls, scatter dice, pilot skill rolls for movement, and pretty much anything that includes dice. but it's ok you can completely take the dice out of a table top dice based game and everything will work just fine.

The to-hit rolls represent the battlemech's ability to handle whatever conditions are occurring when the pilot pulls the trigger and they are knowable by intuition and contribute to good gameplay and fun.

"scatter dice" - There is no "scatter dice" rule or roll in TT. What are you making reference to?

I already said beforehand that the PSRs for movement shouldn't be in the game.

"Anything that includes dice" ... Why? In fact, do you even know what the various dice rolls are there for, such that you can know if including them would be bad?

Or are you proceeding on the ignorant and broken notion that any use of percentage mechanics MUST remove any human skill from the equation?

Quote

--^^and when you do roll 2s you usually have several other mechs at your disposal instead of being locked in one mech that is down 9 tons + ammo worth of equipment. and they were designed for the higher rate of fire but the technology is new and incomplete. you have an amazing sense of what makes for good gameplay.

So, you think that good gameplay is where nothing bad ever happens to you? No matter what happens or what kind of stupidity is engaged in?

[blinkin]

Pht, on 08 April 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

canon stats but NOT the combat system those stats were built for.

that would be because the dice that TT makes use of have been entirely replaced by much less random player skills. we don't roll scatter dice to determine component hits, almost all of those shots go straight into the CT or whatever target the pilot deams appropriate. we don't roll for hits, a stationary pilot will almost always hit another stationary target all the way out to around 600m. <-estimate based on in game experience.

the only thing we still roll the dice for is internal criticals.

when you take the dice entirely out of a dice based game stuff changes.

[Pht]

Xerxys, on 04 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

I know what you're talking about with the mechs targeting computer doing all the calculations. When I spoke of a perfectly aimed shot from ~800 meters I was talking about how the game works now.

Ok. I wasn't sure.

Quote

The fact that I missed my perfectly aimed shot b/c a targeting computer didn't have enough time to calculate properly therefore causing a miss would in fact **** me off, but I could live with that.

This is where we ought to try and get people to realize that the average FPS aiming setup doesn't equate exactly to aiming at something in a battlemech.

You can keep the reticule exactly where you want it with perfect precision, but if you haven't also taken into consideration how what you're doing when you pull the triggers is going to affect your 'Mech's ability to make the shot ... You haven't made a "perfect shot."

People seem to miss that they're not driving a rifle on legs. They're driving an armored combat unit. We ought to be helping people understand this.

Quote

Most people playing this game could not.

I rather disagree - not if they went into the game with the knowledge of the basics of what constitutes "gunnery skill" in piloting a battlemech - which the developers could easily do with a "training planet" for the green-horns.

It's not so hard to figure out "don't run hot," "don't expect shots to hit when you're moving very fast or your target is moving fast," "don't expect shots outside of the medium rated battlefield range for any given weapon to hit at a high percentage."

[Pht]

blinkin, on 08 April 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

that would be because the dice that TT makes use of have been entirely replaced by much less random player skills.

And you know for sure that the things those dice rolls were used to represent in the TT game were the skills of the 'mech's pilot, instead of representing the Battlemech's combat abilities?

Quote

we don't roll scatter dice to determine component hits, almost all of those shots go straight into the CT or whatever target the pilot deams appropriate.

The logical conclusion of this is that the battlemech, functionally, shouldn't even exist in the aiming equation, and that it's abilities to calculate how to hit what the pilot is tracking with the reticule and it's abilities to physically align those weapons ... shouldn't matter.

Even though virtually all of the lore addressing combat in a mech and the TT says otherwise.

Quote

we don't roll for hits, a stationary pilot will almost always hit another stationary target all the way out to around 600m. <-estimate based on in game experience.

Stationary mechs are at a -1 to hit - meaning they're REALLY easy to hit in the TT.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 08 April 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

And you know for sure that the things those dice rolls were used to represent in the TT game were the skills of the 'mech's pilot, instead of representing the Battlemech's combat abilities?
------
The logical conclusion of this is that the battlemech, functionally, shouldn't even exist in the aiming equation, and that it's abilities to calculate how to hit what the pilot is tracking with the reticule and it's abilities to physically align those weapons ... shouldn't matter.

Even though virtually all of the lore addressing combat in a mech and the TT says otherwise.
^^
merry christmas!
OMG look it's parts that don't work or that we don't like.

Stationary mechs are at a -1 to hit - meaning they're REALLY easy to hit in the TT.

DICE
they ummm.... change stuff.

2d6 rolls with bonuses or penalties will never represent an environment as complex as this accurately. in TT you either hit a mech or you don't. in MWO you can get partial hits with lasers. a single laser can hit every portion of a mech. in MWO most assault mechs lose their center torso without ever taking enough damage to their arms to even come close to breaking their armor. or a missile volley can only hit with 2 of the 24 missiles fired.

a light mech moving at full speed 150kph at extreme range for an ERPPC can be lead more accurately in most cases than one circling at 50m.

there are far too many holes in TT for this to be a true simulator (not your incredibly generic definition that includes almost every game every made, but a real simulator) and remain completely true to every TT rule.

so we take what works, while not remaining enslaved to a dice based game that relies on hexes and you only get to fire at certain points during your turn.

in MWO i can do a drive by and leave in TT you have to stop to fire at a target where then he can easily turn around and line up a shot on you.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 08 April 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

DICE
they ummm.... change stuff.

OHNOEZ!

Quote

2d6 rolls with bonuses or penalties will never represent an environment as complex as this accurately.

Yes, because a binary on/off based environment is IMPOSSIBLE to represent with a larger set than on/off.

Quote

in TT you either hit a mech or you don't. in MWO you can get partial hits with lasers.

And you can get a partial hit with lasers (and pretty much anything else that's direct fire) in TT.

It's called the glancing hits rule.

Quote

a single laser can hit every portion of a mech.

And they shouldn't. Nowhere in the lore does this happen in combat; lasers have to put out as much damage in as little on time as is possible.

This behavior is not justifiable by the lore.

Quote

in MWO most assault mechs lose their center torso without ever taking enough damage to their arms to even come close to breaking their armor.

And they do so because the battlemech's comat performance is not modeled in any meaningful sense at all. Two reticules, one slower than the other, doesn't even begin to represent the combat performance of a battlemech.

Quote

or a missile volley can only hit with 2 of the 24 missiles fired.

Happens in the TT too; even without AMS. With ams, if you use the advanced (more comprehensive) rules for ams, every single missile can be knocked down by the AMS.

Quote

a light mech moving at full speed 150kph at extreme range for an ERPPC can be lead more accurately in most cases than one circling at 50m.

which the TT system would represent in realtime form simply by the factor that the mech is only in your firing arcs for a very small time; and that the 'Mech would not have enough time to get a quality weapons lock and would not be able to track the target very well.

Quote

there are far too many holes in TT for this to be a true simulator...

No, there are not, and those few that exist can be fixed by simply expanding the TT system in the same way that the advanced rulesets for the TT have.

All that has to be imitated is how battlemechs perform in combat in the ficitional lore and the pilot's interactions with their mech... not "reality."

Quote

(not your incredibly generic definition that includes almost every game every made, but a real simulator)

99.9% of all games were not built with the purpose in mind of "imitating." it's a meaningful definition that gives clear specifications of what is and what is not a simulation game.

Zelda wasn't and isn't a simulation game; it was never intended as being a simulation of anything.

Quote

and remain completely true to every TT rule.

----

so we take what works, while not remaining enslaved to a dice based game that relies on hexes and you only get to fire at certain points during your turn.

----

in MWO i can do a drive by and leave in TT you have to stop to fire at a target where then he can easily turn around and line up a shot on you.

... and I have said that we must "remain completely true to every TT rule" ... where?

----

You don't use the hex based version. you reference the miniatures rules, which rate things in inches.

----

How many times must I say that it is possible to use the rules from the TT *in real time?* There is no "taking turns" about it.

Edited by Pht, 08 April 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 08 April 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

OHNOEZ!



Yes, because a binary on/off based environment is IMPOSSIBLE to represent with a larger set than on/off.
--^^never said it was anything like impossible, but it is not nearly detailed enough to make for a respectable simulator.


And you can get a partial hit with lasers (and pretty much anything else that's direct fire) in TT.

It's called the glancing hits rule.
--^^have no experience or knowledge of this rule so i will leave you alone here.


And they shouldn't. Nowhere in the lore does this happen in combat; lasers have to put out as much damage in as little on time as is possible.

This behavior is not justifiable by the lore.
--^^so lasers would be just like ballistics except they would require no lead, BRILLIANT!!


And they do so because the battlemech's comat performance is not modeled in any meaningful sense at all. Two reticules, one slower than the other, doesn't even begin to represent the combat performance of a battlemech.
--^^so how much of the player is the mech supposed to replace? why don't we just zoom out to a top down view where we direct the mechs around the field and just tell them what weapons to fire at their targets.


Happens in the TT too; even without AMS. With ams, if you use the advanced (more comprehensive) rules for ams, every single missile can be knocked down by the AMS.
--^^except i never mentioned AMS anywhere did i?


which the TT system would represent in realtime form simply by the factor that the mech is only in your firing arcs for a very small time; and that the 'Mech would not have enough time to get a quality weapons lock and would not be able to track the target very well.
--^^so it is a worthwhile move for a light mech to continually circle around an assault mech at very close range? both the close range mech and the long range mech get movement penalties to hit for their speed right? the long range mech gets the distance penalties right? during your turn can't you rotate mechs around as much as you want in your movement phase? it is a turn based game so at some point the player has to leave the light mech on the board right? so it seems to me that the close range light mech only gets the penalty for his speed, while the long range light mech gets THE EXACT SAME SPEED PENALTY AND THE RANGE PENALTY.


No, there are not, and those few that exist can be fixed by simply expanding the TT system in the same way that the advanced rulesets for the TT have.
--^^so when do these advanced rule sets work the dice into the aiming system?

All that has to be imitated is how battlemechs perform in combat in the ficitional lore and the pilot's interactions with their mech... not "reality."
--^^except when you don't like it, example: reactor explosions
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2207995
last time i checked books and games added to the lore unless they were considered apocryphal. even the TT has rules for mech explosions.


99.9% of all games were not built with the purpose in mind of "imitating." it's a meaningful definition that gives clear specifications of what is and what is not a simulation game.

Zelda wasn't and isn't a simulation game; it was never intended as being a simulation of anything.
--^^yay more of your deinitions that have nothing to do with the real word.
http://www.merriam-w...tionary/imitate

1: to follow as a pattern, model, or example

2: to be or appear like : resemble

3: to produce a copy of : reproduce
4: mimic, counterfeit <can imitate his father's booming voice>


... and I have said that we must "remain completely true to every TT rule" ... where?
--^^...and that is the primary point you demanded i defend
----

You don't use the hex based version. you reference the miniatures rules, which rate things in inches.
--^^so which rule sets are we using then. let me know when you have made up your mind which hodge podge of rules works and then we will throw out the parts that don't work.
----

How many times must I say that it is possible to use the rules from the TT *in real time?* There is no "taking turns" about it.
--^^looky more stuff that doesn't work that has been thrown out. hint: rhymes with "faking urns"

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 08 April 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

2d6 rolls with bonuses or penalties will never represent an environment as complex as this accurately. in TT you either hit a mech or you don't. in MWO you can get partial hits with lasers. a single laser can hit every portion of a mech. in MWO most assault mechs lose their center torso without ever taking enough damage to their arms to even come close to breaking their armor. or a missile volley can only hit with 2 of the 24 missiles fired.

Um sorry but i have to disagree.
You can represent them.
Look at your stats.

Take the to hit probability of TT values and multiply them with the weapon damage and create the average.

So you will get the knowleget that (with full complex TT rules)

The medium laser in TT doese 1.9dmg and the medium laser in MWO based on your to hit probability and the damage you have done 1.8 dmg.

But that is only for the hit. That takes not into account that you still have a highly increased rate of fire.
So that the MWO Medium laser on a average player doese 5.4 dmg over the 1.9 from TT..

Its all about Mathematic, abstraction and numbers.


:OH PLEASE STOP QUO QUOTING CAPITAL LETTERING EACH OTHER ITS HARD TO FOLLOW YOUR DISPUT

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 April 2013 - 03:53 AM.

[Karl Split]

well in truth I find mwo very enjoyable. Yes its different to tt and the other games. I was watching a playthough of mw2: mercs yesterday and they play very differently. I wouldnt say one is better than the other just different.

I dont like the feel of lrm's in mwo tho I'll say that. Not the damage, just they dont seem to work well.

[Syllogy]

I roll 20's.

[Karl Streiger]

Syllogy, on 10 April 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

I roll 20's.

hm BattleTech on d20 or d30 would be more easy to convert into realtime because you can get more granular.

Also would allow you to increase the base figures of TT with value of 5. What create smoother damage curves.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 April 2013 - 06:44 AM.

[Syllogy]

This is the game you are looking for.

[Karl Streiger]

Syllogy, on 10 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

This is the game you are looking for.

THIS is the game YOU are looking for

[Syllogy]

Karl Streiger, on 10 April 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

THIS is the game YOU are looking for

Sorry, but I don't like Call of Duty. Nice try though.

I've been playing Mechwarrior as a PC game since 1989. I can say with all honesty that no Mechwarrior Title has ever tried to use the Tabletop dice-rolls as a legitimate game mechanic.

On the other hand, how long have you been playing Mechwarrior? (Not Battletech)

[Karl Streiger]

Syllogy, on 10 April 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

On the other hand, how long have you been playing Mechwarrior? (Not Battletech)

Hm...i started with a Mechwarrior 2 Demo

Did you have seen the table before PHT and blinkin started to quote hacking at each other?
MW 2 did exactly use the same weapon stats on hit...but mixed with incredible high RoF - but the projectile travel time was acceptable
MW 3 did similar - reduced cycle but better balanced weapon. Greates improvement was the heat system
MW 4 based on weapons was most interesting
Mechcommander (while with random to hit) has the same weapon stats as TT

BUT MWLL made a complete own system.
And that is the point. You develop a own system...or you keep true. But yo do not do things by halves.

[Syllogy]

Karl Streiger, on 10 April 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Hm...i started with a Mechwarrior 2 Demo

Did you have seen the table before PHT and blinkin started to quote hacking at each other?
MW 2 did exactly use the same weapon stats on hit...but mixed with incredible high RoF - but the projectile travel time was acceptable
MW 3 did similar - reduced cycle but better balanced weapon. Greates improvement was the heat system
MW 4 based on weapons was most interesting
Mechcommander (while with random to hit) has the same weapon stats as TT

BUT MWLL made a complete own system.
And that is the point. You develop a own system...or you keep true. But yo do not do things by halves.

Uh... everything you just stated (except MWLL, which was a Licensed Free Mod, and not an Official Game Release) had half from TT and half from their own creativity to create balance.

So you basically just validated the decisions that PGI has made.

[Karl Streiger]

i did not.
Each Mechwarrior failed in multiplayer games.
So there were leassons that could have been learned

[Syllogy]

Karl Streiger, on 10 April 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

i did not.
Each Mechwarrior failed in multiplayer games.
So there were leassons that could have been learned

That's not true. Kesmai's MBT had some amazing Multiplayer, and it took bits and parts from TT, but made up the rest by themselves.

Also, you seem to have forgotten that most of these games were played with Dialup connections, during an age where Multiplayer Gaming wasn't the standard, it was an option.

If you want Dice Rolls and Hardcore TT Rules, then you need to be playing Tactics, plain and simple.

It's not a bad thing, I play Tactics, and I also play MWO. They each perform their genre-roles admirably, but trying to make a child out of both would yield a face that only a kool-aid drinker could love.

Edited by Syllogy, 10 April 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

i don't want to make a child of both. i'm worried that they took some stats and did not considered other ones.

the armor locations is a superb example Armor distribution as it is in mwo is based on dice rolling and has never changed. even after XL engines and DHS.
To redo the same mistake ever and ever till the end of time is not good game design.

So yes you can not take 1:1 stats from tt and squeeze it into realtime.

[Elyam]

I haven't looked in on this in weeks and you guys are still going...

Think on this: Let's say a sci-fi writer makes a series of extraordinarily-popular novels with a large part of the story being futuristic warfare engaged with a new form of vehicle previously unimagined. Let's say this writer backs up the technical side of combat with pretty extensive explanations and that these are part of its popular success. Let's say that common actions committed by the vehicles and pilots involve noteable risk and chances of failure that are inherent to the technologies involved, such as a common 70% chance to strike a similar target that gets even worse based on how much activity the pilot and machine commit to and likewise for the target. The core of this is one raw fact - that any attack begins with just a 70% chance to succeed - and it is a reality of the technology that nothing else can change. If a game is made based on this universe, it must reflect this expected 'reality'. To ignore it due to the claims of some potential players that dealing with that core 70% chance simply isn't fun risks alienation of the existing massive fanbase of the property. It also risks destabilizing the whole underlying successful formulae the series is built upon.

With Battletech we face a very similar set of facts. But people who prefer a game with point-and-shoot without deviation want to force that preference and mask it beneath arguments that a change of game/story venue necessitates this alteration to a core precept of the sci-fi universe in question. This has nothing to do with the procedures, numbers, and methods of one venue versus another - and in this case, this means nothing at all to do with dice. It has everything to do with committing to properly recreating a known successful artificial world.



(I pulled back on a further comment that was based on too many earlier years of arguments and reactions and had no place here)

Edited by Elyam, 10 April 2013 - 10:01 AM.