111 replies to this topic

[Lord Trogus]

Iron Harlequin, on 10 June 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

So you disagree with the LRM ranges?

Not particularly, for the purposes of the game. However, why is everything restricted to roughly 1K?? I am disappoint with the hideously short distances of "futuristic warfare".

Edited by Lord Trogus, 10 June 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[DocBach]

514yer, on 10 June 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Typical. Get called on being a troll pretend it was anything but

You caught me. I really do want them to implement game breaking, balance upsetting features for the cause of "fun", all you loyal BattleTech fans be dammed, this is MECHWARRIOR.

[Sychodemus]

Lord Trogus, on 10 June 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I agree with the OP's logic here, this isn't daddy's Battletech anymore. The TT turn-based hex days were fun, but there is still an element of realism to consider. Look me in the Webcam and tell me a Machine Gun fires as rapidly as an AC-20. Tell me a pilot won't see a Catapult hanging five seconds in the air prepping for the fatal DFA, tell me there every pilot is as good as the last, and tell me there are only six directions to look on the battlefield. Short and simple, the TT doesn't represent the "conventional" aspects of gaming warfare. Mechwarrior may be based off a fun 80's robo board game, but that does not mean it has to stay hampered down by decades-old rules that contain obvious mechanics flaws.

Obviously, MWO is not going to be a hex-based game. It is not like every 'Mech is going to move, stop, torso-twist and then fire - in that order. Tabletop rules are going to be applied to areas where they make sense, such as construction, ranges and comparative values - weight, damage and armor. Everything else will be in the hands of the player - reaction, accuracy and timing.

And, once again, flawed TT game mechanics or not, they are based on logic defined by the setting. (Note the distinction between "mechanics" and "logic.") Different mechanics can enhance MWO, but they cannot supplant the core logic of BT without completely altering the setting.

And comparing MGs to ACs in BT is redundant. They both can have the same rate of fire. Regardless of their name, the mechanical operation of both can be the same.

[Sychodemus]

ViperPryde, on 10 June 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

Need to fire under stupid circumstances in order to miss....I don't fire under stupid circumstances...

So... you only fire when you and your enemy are in short range and neither moved?

Bah. As long you and your friend's have fun.

[Sychodemus]

Lord Trogus, on 10 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Not particularly, for the purposes of the game. However, why is everything restricted to roughly 1K?? I am disappoint with the hideously short distances of "futuristic warfare".

That unfortunately is a side-effect of the TT game. The designers wanted maneuver to play a crucial role in the game, so weapon ranges were drawn-down to a comparable measure (basically 1-2 hexboards.) It is the one area that irks the hell out of realists and the one area that if you change will completely alter the feel of BT. (They could still nudge the ranges a little, but oh well. Timeless gripe.)

[Meuric]

GrizzlyViking, on 10 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

It's just how it is...this good news is that we have a passionate player base. The difficulty right now is knowing that there are people playing the game while the rest of us sit out here and wonder about it. So we sit around and spin tales of what we hope the game will or will not be and get into countless arguments about things we know nothing about. I come a few times a day to look at my Pending status in the hopes that it won't be Pending. Pending becomes more irritating for all of us when we see a few posts by people that are obviously in the Closed BETA and have no clue about what they are doing. However, they need these guys in there too so that can see how well players that are completely new to Mecha type games are going to do with figuring things out...even if they haven't figured the forums out yet. So we make posts and vent a little along with a few meaningful posts. We no new information lately, we are now rehashing things that we have discussed and people are making up new things that have no basis in reality. I'd say what we are experiencing here is some sort of mass obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Has my status changed... what about now... Maybe, now...

[Lord Trogus]

Sychodemus, on 10 June 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

And comparing MGs to ACs in BT is redundant. They both can have the same rate of fire. Regardless of their name, the mechanical operation of both can be the same.

That is the point. In BT they have the same fire rate, which would translate horribly in Mechwarrior if that factor remained constant. It was a means to an end to explain a few particular flaws with BT. Fire rates should be variable, and the only way to represent a MG effectively is to break BT's rules and implement slight damage variations. It can't all go from paper to PC.

[Iron Harlequin]

Lord Trogus, on 10 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Not particularly, for the purposes of the game. However, why is everything restricted to roughly 1K?? I am disappoint with the hideously short distances of "futuristic warfare".

Someone made a graph of the ranges, It doesn't state why this is so in battletech. But my guess is being that the "future" tech isn't all that futuristic, some of it is rather primitive. I'm sure you'd get more range out of weapons on something the size of a battleship because it has the necessary weight/power to use such weapons but battlemechs aren't that big in comparison. Therefore smaller ranges, however this is merely my speculation. An LRM can only fire from under 1K but in the year 2012 we have an infantry missile system (Javelin) that can fire 2500 meters (2.5 Kilometers), yes it sounds ridiculous but its pretty much been that way for forever.

Aegis Kleais, on 13 May 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

OK, again, sorry if it all looks cheesy, but this graphic goes on the TT rules (since we don't know actual numbers from PGI). The weapons are color coded, heat (flame icon) is relative to the hottest weapon. The icons on the right on top are the crit slots and below it is the tonnage. The width of the bars is the weapon's length (even though PGI said that they may go further at reduced efficiency on some weapons) and the thickness of the bars signifies the weapon's damage potential.

Hope it proves useful.

[Sychodemus]

Lord Trogus, on 10 June 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

That is the point. In BT they have the same fire rate, which would translate horribly in Mechwarrior if that factor remained constant. It was a means to an end to explain a few particular flaws with BT. Fire rates should be variable, and the only way to represent a MG effectively is to break BT's rules and implement slight damage variations. It can't all go from paper to PC.

Sure. I can understand what you are saying. But in MWO fire rates (or the graphical appearance of such) may mean nothing - only the net effect on the armor of the target means anything - something we have no hard data on at the moment.
It is very possible that MGs will have a 3 second "graphical burst" but its damage is delivered in the first half-second. But this strays into DPS/Damage Application which I cannot honestly have an opinion on until the final product is revealed (and the inevitable parsing begins.)

I am confident that PGI will handle it with professionalism and common sense. As long as any changes made to one weapon system are done while considering every others weapon' place, I think we should be good.

[Aegis Kleais]

Lord Trogus, on 10 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Not particularly, for the purposes of the game. However, why is everything restricted to roughly 1K?? I am disappoint with the hideously short distances of "futuristic warfare".

You have to understand game scale. If Ballistic weapons on a Mech platform had "today's realistic ranges", everyone would be aggravated that enemies who are specks on the horizon are accurately nailing them with devastating damage.

The game has to be scaled accordingly. It's one of the "Scaled back reality for the sake of usability" instances. Remember, MWO is based in a FICTIONAL universe. We base things on real-world physics, but they're not fully bound by them.

[Havokk]

Kazzamo, on 10 June 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

I almost hate myself for even posting in this thread but if you don't like a thread just don't read it. Making a thread to complain about threads never does any good.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner!!!!

[HIemfire]

Kazzamo, on 10 June 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

But perfect is a horrible horrible thing! It's so stagnant and final. There's no room for progress.

Hyperius, on 10 June 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Plus it doesn't exist.

With perfection there is no need to progress. With no need to progress what drives existance? Also begs the question, could the universe be imperfect for a reason?

Elysion I reccommend starting a thread of your own concerning your theological/philosophical ideology in the Jettisoned Communication section of the forum instead of further hijacking this thread. You never know, it may help.