143 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

ok because i would like this to progress beyond the monty python parrot skit we have going now, i am going to carefully lay out my understanding of your system.

i am going to separate out the respective duties of the pilot and the mech within MY understanding of your system. no hyperbole, no analogies, just simple explanation of my understanding in as pure a form as the english language allows.

in YOUR response, i am going to ask you to keep things as simple and pure as possible as well and for you to follow these same rules. no special terms, no links to other things you have authored. do your very best to explain this in a form that an 8 year old who has NEVER seen anything related to battletech or mechwarrior could understand.

no abbreviations, no anything that can be misunderstood. BOTH of us will carefully spell out EVERYTHING to the very best of our abilities. ANYTHING that is not DIRECTLY related to a logical or factual argument must be put into an easily recognizable special font (this allows for notes or relevant reasoning)

pilot duties:

• selecting an enemy entity for attack (this is nothing more than designating a specific battlemech on the field, something you could effectively do over a microphone in combat)
  
• selecting a specific component or "called shot"
  
• choosing when to fire weapons
  
• choosing what weapons to fire (so far this is fairly standard fare for any first person game where you are given a gun of any kind, only difference with MWO is you get to fire multiple weapons at once instead of a single chosen weapon)
  
• selecting weapon modes (no issues with me here, many fps have reliably done fire modes well, and whether we like it or not MWO shares many similarities with the fps genre. to the best of my knowledge this is being worked on. i have heard lots of talk about inferno ammunition and whatnot)
  
• selecting ammunition types (ditto, i have not heard anything that indicates that this is being worked into the game yet)
  
• standard movement that the game currently has with some minor expansions based on table top rules

mech duties:

• determining lead on a target (this one was defined explicitly within the OP, this is one that cuts into the act of aiming)
  
• calculating weapons convergence (this game already does that, i wish they would go back to the old way where it was not immediate)
  
• aiming in general as explicitly defined by YOU in the OP several times.

i have read the OP several times. even when you go into the numbers you start talking about rolling dice to hit within the second paragraph. "The 'Mech actually indicates the to-hit number directly on the hud - it does it as color coding on the reticule; usually red for "poor targeting" (high to-hit modifier) to gold for "best targeting" (low to-hit modifier); along with audible cues" yet you keep trying to say this IS NOT a random system and that the pilot aims (which is in DIRECT conflict with several statements made within the OP). currently it seems to me like you are trying to convince everyone that 1+1=7.

my best understanding of this system is that i can line up an extremely difficult shot, do everything perfectly and have a high likelihood of the computer telling me to F*** off because it was a "difficult shot". besides the called shot your system looks like an almost perfect description of how streaks or LRM work.

i generally agree with a more involved heat system that does adversely effect aiming and generally follows the table top heat scale. i think it would generally make for more interesting gameplay.

this is exactly what i see, lain out as clearly as i can. if you have any questions then ask away, otherwise explain to me exactly where my understanding has failed.

Edited by blinkin, 19 July 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[EchoMike]

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

and the pilot has to know his 'mech well enough to know if it's capable of doing what the pilot is asking of it.

Would you give examples of this? In order for a pilot to 'know his mech well enough to know if it's capable of doing what the pilot is asking of it' would the pilot have to lead the target with his reticle more? Or less? Reduce speed? Run cooler etc.? In other words: in order for a mech pilot to 100% guarantee he hits what he is aiming at with his reticle he would have to take the following under consideration: his mech is relatively still or moving slowly, the enemy would have to be relatively still or moving slowly, be running his mech relatively 'cool', being sure to fire his weapons within their 'optimum range' etc.? Am I understanding your premise regarding this issue correctly? I haven't played TT or read the novels. Based on your information, in the lore and novels a battle mech 'handles its weapons differently under stress ( speed, heat, other factors), as opposed to under no stress. The pilot has to account for how his/her battle mech handles it's weapons under stress. Do I get it?

Edited by EchoMike, 20 July 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 19 July 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

pilot duties:

• selecting an enemy entity for attack (this is nothing more than designating a specific battlemech on the field, something you could effectively do over a microphone in combat)

... and I specifically showed exactly how the pilot does this.

In player terms; they do so in real time, with no pausing, by controlling the reticule drawn on the main hud in the 'mech.

"controlling" meaning the player must use their peripheral in exactly the same physical manner they do now. There is no "indicate than forget" of any sort. It is nothing like getting a missile lock than "fire and forget." You must continuously control the placement of the reticule on the screen.

Quote

• selecting a specific component or "called shot"

Called shots are not vs specific components. They are "called" high/low or left/right and concentrate the weapons fire into a smaller section of the target, but not specifically vs a single armor panel/component. Because the target area is smaller there's a higher chance to miss.

It is also not necessary to use the called shot function. It only "activates" when you place the reticule over the extremities of the target.

----

You've left off most of the mental skills that seperate a good player from an average player. These are the skills that replace the lead calculation that the 'mech does. These things make up the content that fill out "know your 'mech." They are equivalent to any other FPS/Shooter that does ballistics in physics (or otherwise)in which you must "know your gun." Not calling these "gunnery/aiming" skills would be like telling a scout-sniper that all of his mental calculations really aren't meaningful to making a good shot. They are also skills which are not needed in the game right now; they simply aren't present.

----

Quote

mech duties:

• determining lead on a target (this one was defined explicitly within the OP, this is one that cuts into the act of aiming)

Of course the 'mech has to actually aim the weapons; this is a simple fact in the lore. There are plenty of other settings in which the 'mechs are so capable that this virtually isn't a factor; but the BT/MW setting isn't one of them. The creators left that sort of thing to other games.

Quote

• aiming in general as explicitly defined by YOU in the OP several times.

"Aiming in general" - I did not post such in the OP or anywhere else, so I don't know what you're making reference to. Without specific content this is impossible to meaningfully interact with.

Quote

i have read the OP several times. even when you go into the numbers you start talking about rolling dice to hit within the second paragraph. "The 'Mech actually indicates the to-hit number directly on the hud - it does it as color coding on the reticule; usually red for "poor targeting" (high to-hit modifier) to gold for "best targeting" (low to-hit modifier); along with audible cues" yet you keep trying to say this IS NOT a random...

I gave a very specific definition of "random" and it is what I was referring to.

Random can either mean what most people seem to mean:

unpredictable (in any way), resulting in non-intuitive gameplay results which a player has no way of controlling.

Or:

Be a synonym for "hit percentages based upon conditions" - in this case in particular hit percentages which are entirely knowable and can be controlled by player choices.

Quote

... system and that the pilot aims (which is in DIRECT conflict with several statements made within the OP). currently it seems to me like you are trying to convince everyone that 1+1=7.

It appears that you're presuming that the symbols "aim" must always mean the exact same thing.

The context the word is used in determines it's meaning.

Quote

my best understanding of this system is that i can line up an extremely difficult shot, do everything perfectly and have a high likelihood of the computer telling me to F*** off because it was a "difficult shot".

What do you mean by "do everything perfectly?"

In the OP, if you actually use all the tactics available, you can succsessfully shoot at slow-moving targets thirty-five miles away on the horizon and expect that you'll at least hit the overall target.... with vanilla inner-sphere medium lasers. That's what "doing everything perfectly" in the OP system can allow for.

Quote

besides the called shot your system looks like an almost perfect description of how streaks or LRM work.

... this is the exact sort of misunderstanding I had in mind when I pointed out that the pilot not only has to indicate the target with the reticule but he actually also has to track it as well.

Edited by Pht, 22 July 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[Pht]

EchoMike, on 20 July 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Would you give examples of this?

Certainly. There are actually a lot of them in the OP. You mention some of them below:

Quote

In order for a pilot to 'know his mech well enough to know if it's capable of doing what the pilot is asking of it' would the pilot have to lead the target with his reticle more? Or less? Reduce speed? Run cooler etc.? In other words: in order for a mech pilot to 100% guarantee he hits what he is aiming at with his reticle he would have to take the following under consideration: his mech is relatively still or moving slowly, the enemy would have to be relatively still or moving slowly, be running his mech relatively 'cool', being sure to fire his weapons within their 'optimum range' etc.? Am I understanding your premise regarding this issue correctly?

It seems you have it right. At least as I understand you so far.

If you want extremely high hit percentages; you usually have to slow down, use your weapons at their listed medium ranges, and not be overheating. The rest of the major factors are based upon target behavior.

Quote

I haven't played TT or read the novels. Based on your information, in the lore and novels a battle mech 'handles its weapons differently under stress ( speed, heat, other factors), as opposed to under no stress. The pilot has to account for how his/her battle mech handles it's weapons under stress. Do I get it?

Bingo.

Certain things make it harder for a 'mech to get the weapons aligned. Some things even make it harder for the 'mech's Targeting and Tracking (not the advanced TC mentioned in the aimed shot section) have a harder time calculating lead (for instance, your mech's sensors get blown off, target is evading).

Or, for instance, mechs use plastic muscles called myomers. They contract just like natural muscles, except they apply the energy directly in electrical form instead of chemical.

Because myomers are electrical motors, when they overheat they become more resistive (sluggish); and because the heat is never applied equally through the myomer, the muscle "twitches" too. This is one of the major reasons that 'mechs get less precise when they overheat.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 22 July 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

... and I specifically showed exactly how the pilot does this.

In player terms; they do so in real time, with no pausing, by controlling the reticule drawn on the main hud in the 'mech.

"controlling" meaning the player must use their peripheral in exactly the same physical manner they do now. There is no "indicate than forget" of any sort. It is nothing like getting a missile lock than "fire and forget." You must continuously control the placement of the reticule on the screen.

missiles aren't fire and forget either (at least LRM, streaks are a weird mess, better than they were but still need some attention), but let's move on to the more interesting point here. what is the point of maintaining "lock" (for lack of a better word) after a shot has been fired? you don't need to guide the shot in.

the same functionality exists in the game right now. the primary difference is in this game i ALWAYS hit exactly what i am aiming at and i don't have some random dice roll deciding that having the crosshairs center of mass isn't good enough because the dice said so.

i like the CANON methods that have been established over several decades and many different MECHWARRIOR games. did the mechwarrior series do everything perfect, of course not, but the table top has had plenty of issues. even you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond a handful of rule books.

the difference between you and me is i don't pick and choose what i allow as lore. the BT universe is huge and you just look like an *** when you declare yourself as the final judge on what is or isn't allowed to be lore. unless you OWN THE IP shut up with all of your self worship and judgements on what is or isn't official.

Called shots are not vs specific components. They are "called" high/low or left/right and concentrate the weapons fire into a smaller section of the target, but not specifically vs a single armor panel/component. Because the target area is smaller there's a higher chance to miss.

It is also not necessary to use the called shot function. It only "activates" when you place the reticule over the extremities of the target.

you would have gotten along well in the age of muskets. did you know that the classic "ready, aim, fire" was not used for muskets before rifling. in the old days it was simply "ready, fire" because muskets were horribly inaccurate. you point center of mass pull the trigger and hope. that is the system you have here, aim center of mass and hope the dice like you today, or do a called shot and pray the dice like you even more.
----

You've left off most of the mental skills that seperate a good player from an average player. These are the skills that replace the lead calculation that the 'mech does. These things make up the content that fill out "know your 'mech." They are equivalent to any other FPS/Shooter that does ballistics in physics (or otherwise)in which you must "know your gun." Not calling these "gunnery/aiming" skills would be like telling a scout-sniper that all of his mental calculations really aren't meaningful to making a good shot. They are also skills which are not needed in the game right now; they simply aren't present.

----
you mean the skills that are either in the game in some form or on the way? the skills that all fall under the group of "should i pull the trigger" you have simply fluffed up a basic yes or no decision.

• HEAT is far simpler in this system but the core decision is still there, i often choose to run away and cool down instead of shutting my mech down in front of everybody. i would like a more complex heat scale that follows tabletop, BUT that is separate issue that doesn't require your absurd system.
  
• FIRING MODES, most FPS games i have ever played have included these decisions and 99% of the time you make the decision when you have a break in the fight, either way it is a decision/action that takes at most 1 second within several minutes of fighting.
  
• AMMUNITION TYPES ^^ditto also it is already on the way into the game
  
• ENVIRONMENT/TERRAIN already in the game. trees and weather provide obscurement making shots difficult
  
• TARGET MOVEMENT either you lead properly or you wait for a shot with a low angle of incidence (something your copy pasta system doesn't account for). a target that is running directly toward or away from you is almost as easy to hit as a stationary target.
  
• MOVEMENT already got that
  
• WEAPON CHOICE already got that too. i generally don't fire my medium lasers at a target that is a kilometer away.
  
• KNOWING WHEN TO ENGAGE IN ADVANCED FIRING MODES now you are just being repetitive.

Of course the 'mech has to actually aim the weapons; this is a simple fact in the lore. There are plenty of other settings in which the 'mechs are so capable that this virtually isn't a factor; but the BT/MW setting isn't one of them. The creators left that sort of thing to other games.

again picking and choosing what you allow as lore. this game is based on MECHWARRIOR which is a decades old series with established rules and an attempt to get away from the simplicity of tabletop since computers can rapidly model situations far more efficiently than dice ever could. MECHWARRIOR is designed to be something that tabletop could never effectively be.

"Aiming in general" - I did not post such in the OP or anywhere else, so I don't know what you're making reference to. Without specific content this is impossible to meaningfully interact with.

well you have seen my font editing artwork with regards to your OP. if you don't see my point from there then you are a lost cause, but why not try anyway while i am typing. i do not want dice deciding whether i made the kill or not. if i lined up a masterful shot in a brawl that would finish off a red CT, i don't want a dice roll deciding that i hit his arm instead.

I gave a very specific definition of "random" and it is what I was referring to.

Random can either mean what most people seem to mean:

unpredictable (in any way), resulting in non-intuitive gameplay results which a player has no way of controlling.

Or:

Be a synonym for "hit percentages based upon conditions" - in this case in particular hit percentages which are entirely knowable and can be controlled by player choices.

and i have already clearly explained several times that i know you are talking about dice rolls. regardless of what you call this, it is still dice rolls.

It appears that you're presuming that the symbols "aim" must always mean the exact same thing.

The context the word is used in determines it's meaning.

http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/aim<p class="headword" id="headword">

• ¹aim
  
• verb \ˈām\

<p class="dictButtons">

• 
  

• Definition of AIM
  
• intransitive verb

<p class="sblk">

• 1
  
• : to direct a course; specifically : to point a weapon at an object

What do you mean by "do everything perfectly?"

In the OP, if you actually use all the tactics available, you can succsessfully shoot at slow-moving targets thirty-five miles away on the horizon and expect that you'll at least hit the overall target.... with vanilla inner-sphere medium lasers. That's what "doing everything perfectly" in the OP system can allow for.

CAN allow for. it can also allow for a completely stationary mech to completely miss a stationary atlas from 50 meters away. i have played several different tabletop games, battletech is not some special snowflake. i don't want my efforts at lining up a proper shot replaced with a bunch of dice rolls from a machine that cannot aim as effectively as it's pilot can.

you want to see your system? go play Eve online. lock one or several targets, select your weapons select your ammunition and then the game decides whether you hit and how hard after including relative motion, ship size, weapon capabilities, and a whole list of other factors that actually make it worth having the game take direct control away from the player. all at distances (extremely close range would be considered to be 3 kilometers where long range can easily reach past 100 kilometers) and speeds that players would actually have trouble with compensating for in a fully 3 dimensional fighting environment (MWO is mostly played on a very flat plain with only minor variations in vertical motion at very close ranges that are based on tabletop values with incredibly large and slow walking robots with top speeds that don't even reach 100mph).

... this is the exact sort of misunderstanding I had in mind when I pointed out that the pilot not only has to indicate the target with the reticule but he actually also has to track it as well.

you mean just like LRM. except with LRM i actually have to hold lock after they have been fired. explain to me why i should hold the lock after the shot has been completed if i simply want to do a hit and run. the only thing you would have to hold a solid lock for after the trigger is pulled would be the lasers (and even then it is only for up to one second). last i checked AC shots don't gain or lose accuracy after they leave the barrel.

Edited by blinkin, 22 July 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Pht]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2583304

Blinkin said:

what is the point of maintaining "lock" (for lack of a better word) after a shot has been fired? you don't need to guide the shot in.

the same functionality exists in the game right now. the primary difference is in this game i ALWAYS hit exactly what i am aiming at and i don't have some random dice roll deciding that having the crosshairs center of mass isn't good enough because the dice said so.

i like the CANON methods that have been established over several decades and many different MECHWARRIOR games. did the mechwarrior series do everything perfect, of course not, but the table top has had plenty of issues. even you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond a handful of rule books.

the difference between you and me is i don't pick and choose what i allow as lore. the BT universe is huge and you just look like an *** when you declare yourself as the final judge on what is or isn't allowed to be lore. unless you OWN THE IP shut up with all of your self worship and judgements on what is or isn't official.

I didn't post that you need to maintain lock after firing.

"always hit exactly what I am aimng at..." So, if you're going to keep to your standard, do you get equally ticked off at the idea of a physics engine that says "you miss" based upon conditions external to yourself?

If you went to a rifle range, would you call it pointless after realizing a cross-wind could throw your aim off?

"canon methods" - the video games don't define the lore.

"Computer games and the material printed only in Germany (with the exception of the Founding of the Clans novels by Randall Bills) are not considered canonical.

We have a rather simple matter of determining canon in-house: Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.


Currently, that list includes:
All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States
All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps)

The list does not include:
Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others
The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems
The BattleTech cartoon series
The BattleTech comic book series"

http://bg.battletech...php?topic=586.0

"Tabletop has issues..."

Which you seem to never see fit to actually point out. You'd rather just claim them and than act like anyone who dares to ask you what you're talking about must think the TT is perfect (even when they repeatedly say they don't think it is).

"even you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond a handful of rule books."

Not true. In fact, you can't even know this. You can only have assumed it. Besides which, this flatly ignores the fact that the basic combat mechanic is virtually unchanged since the very first version of the game back when it was known as battledroids.

"pick and choose as what I allow as lore" - I suppose than you feel perfectly ok picking and choosing what things that you can't possibly know to post, than.

Unless, of course, you're omniscient and can know things about me that I've not posted. I have, in fact, before this post, not said anything about what is canon and what is not.

I HAVE very specifically said what defines the MW video game genre.

However, if you want to discuss what's canon and what's not, the above link determines what is canon and what is not. You'll see it happens to agree with what I've posted about what defines the MW video game genre.

Quote

you would have gotten along well in the age of muskets. did you know that the classic "ready, aim, fire" was not used for muskets before rifling. in the old days it was simply "ready, fire" because muskets were horribly inaccurate. you point center of mass pull the trigger and hope. that is the system you have here, aim center of mass and hope the dice like you today, or do a called shot and pray the dice like you even more.

In the massed-musket firing you're describing nobody knew what they would hit unless they were at virtually point blank range.

In the system in the OP you can know if you will hit your target or not out to the horizon.

Your comparison is false.

Quote

you mean the skills that are either in the game in some form or on the way? the skills that all fall under the group of "should i pull the trigger" you have simply fluffed up a basic yes or no decision.

• HEAT is far simpler in this system but the core decision is still there, i often choose to run away and cool down instead of shutting my mech down in front of everybody. i would like a more complex heat scale that follows tabletop, BUT that is separate issue that doesn't require your absurd system.
  
• FIRING MODES, most FPS games i have ever played have included these decisions and 99% of the time you make the decision when you have a break in the fight, either way it is a decision/action that takes at most 1 second within several minutes of fighting.
  
• AMMUNITION TYPES ^^ditto also it is already on the way into the game
  
• ENVIRONMENT/TERRAIN already in the game. trees and weather provide obscurement making shots difficult
  
• TARGET MOVEMENT either you lead properly or you wait for a shot with a low angle of incidence (something your copy pasta system doesn't account for). a target that is running directly toward or away from you is almost as easy to hit as a stationary target.
  
• MOVEMENT already got that
  
• WEAPON CHOICE already got that too. i generally don't fire my medium lasers at a target that is a kilometer away.
  
• KNOWING WHEN TO ENGAGE IN ADVANCED FIRING MODES now you are just being repetitive.

Again. The skills which CAN NOT be in the game without simulating the 'mech's weapons handling. so, no.


Heat is not in the system as an aiming factor. It does not affect the 'mech's ability to bring the weapons to bear simply because there is no simulation of the 'mechs ability to bring it's weapons to bear.

Environment/terrain, is, again, not in the system as a factor that affect the 'mech's capabilites. For the same reason; ditto for target movement, self movement, and damage to self.

It is impossible for these mental skills to be in the game because the thing factored for is not even present.

Quote

again picking and choosing what you allow as lore. this game is based on MECHWARRIOR which is a decades old series with established rules and an attempt to get away from the simplicity of tabletop since computers can rapidly model situations far more efficiently than dice ever could. MECHWARRIOR is designed to be something that tabletop could never effectively be.

Again asserting things you don't know. I guess doing this is easier than sticking to what people have posted.

The video game series has a known defintion and said definition has necessary consequences that are unescapable if one wishes to be rational (sane).

If not, than it would be equally valid to say that the series could be literally anything and still be "mechwarrior."

Quote

well you have seen my font editing artwork with regards to your OP. if you don't see my point from there then you are a lost cause, but why not try anyway while i am typing. i do not want dice deciding whether i made the kill or not. if i lined up a masterful shot in a brawl that would finish off a red CT, i don't want a dice roll deciding that i hit his arm instead.

I'm not going to guess what you mean when you've been ambiguous. I see no point in trying to refute something that may well not even be your own position.

"dice decide" - the dice don't decide. Your skills with the mouse and your choices decide if your shots hit. You are not forced as to what conditions you have to fire under.

Quote

and i have already clearly explained several times that i know you are talking about dice rolls. regardless of what you call this, it is still dice rolls.

Rolls which are predictable. Rolls which can be controlled. Which are nothing more than a math mechanic which player skill can manipulate.

Not a boogeyman who wants to eat your appendages off.


"aim" ... Ok, fine, the definition you just quoted fits perfectly what the player does in the OP.

He directs the weapons in the 'mech with his joystick and his choices.

Quote

CAN allow for. it can also allow for a completely stationary mech to completely miss a stationary atlas from 50 meters away. i have played several different tabletop games, battletech is not some special snowflake. i don't want my efforts at lining up a proper shot replaced with a bunch of dice rolls from a machine that cannot aim as effectively as it's pilot can.

Again, what do you mean by "do everything perfectly?" If you don't know what you mean well enough to explain it, why did you even post it?

The only reasons you miss something 2 hex away when you are both stationary is when you're both extremely overheated or you're using the advanced rules and thus damage to your 'mech has severely degraded your 'mech and it's weapons; or you're trying to use a weapon under it's minimum range and you're severely overheated.

You have to do something utterly stupid to miss in said situation.

Quote

you want to see your system? go play Eve online. lock one or several targets, select your weapons select your ammunition and then the game decides whether you hit and how hard after including relative motion, ship size, weapon capabilities, ...

The eve system is not "my system." In eve online you do not have to manipulate the reticule at all. I quite clearly posted that a player has to manipulate the reticule and that a battlemech is not allowed to track a target.

Quote

you mean just like LRM.

No, I don't mean just like the LRM.

You will never be able to refute anyone if you don't bother to determine what they mean; and you have a track record so far of not asking what I mean - you've habitually just assumed something and attached it to me.
----
I am perfectly happy to explain things in different ways until people understand them.

[Mackman]

Pht, on 25 July 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

The eve system is not "my system." In eve online you do not have to manipulate the reticule at all. I quite clearly posted that a player has to manipulate the reticule and that a battlemech is not allowed to track a target.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the only beef you have with him comparing your system to the nearly fully automated system present in Eve Online is that in your system, you have to keep the reticule on target, with the immediate follow-up being, "Well, yeah, after you get the reticule on target then it's pretty much fully automated."

Also hilarious is your insistence that dice don't decide the outcome, when they clearly do... just like in the tabletop. In the tabletop, you can take all sorts of steps to make it "more likely" that what you're trying to do will succeed, but to say that dice don't dictate the outcome is a baldfaced lie. You can do everything right and still miss, and that means that it's dice that are the deciding factor.

He understands you fine. I understand you fine. It's just that your system is a garbage system for what this game is marketed as: A 'thinking-person's shooter" and "a AAA shooter experience." A "shooter", in particular, implies a degree of control over the actual shooting that is faaaaaar greater than what you want. You're the interloper trying to turn this game into something it's not, something it was never intended to be: Stop acting as though that's not the case.

This wouldn't be at all fun for the people who currently enjoy MWO's current combat system (and according to PGI, they aren't lacking in that department). Indeed, the combat system is what's going to draw the non-TT crowd come release day, and that's the thing that will keep this game alive.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 25 July 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2583304



I didn't post that you need to maintain lock after firing.

you posted repeatedly that it was "not fire and forget" and "you need to keep the reticle on target"

"always hit exactly what I am aimng at..." So, if you're going to keep to your standard, do you get equally ticked off at the idea of a physics engine that says "you miss" based upon conditions external to yourself?

If you went to a rifle range, would you call it pointless after realizing a cross-wind could throw your aim off?

no i am perfectly fine with those things because they can be properly understood and predicted. a random number generator or dice roll cannot. do you know how i used to beat boss battles on some of the old RPGs? if it was an extremely difficult boss battle but still there was a chance of victory, i would simply repeat the boss battle until those weighted dice rolls ruled in my favor. it didn't matter that i generally made the exact same choices repeatedly. eventually i would always win because that is the nature of random number generators or dice. sometimes the dice allow you to be an unbeatable god and other times the dice make you into a completely inept fool. that is the nature of dice and random number generators regardless of how you weight the numbers.

"canon methods" - the video games don't define the lore.

"Computer games and the material printed only in Germany (with the exception of the Founding of the Clans novels by Randall Bills) are not considered canonical.

We have a rather simple matter of determining canon in-house: Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.


Currently, that list includes:
All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States
All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps)

The list does not include:
Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others
The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems
The BattleTech cartoon series
The BattleTech comic book series"

http://bg.battletech...php?topic=586.0

i just found something fun on this front. direct from sarna (specifically the page on what is defined as "canon") http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon :
"In summary, in the case of contradicting canonical information,

• Novel Fiction trumps Sourcebook Fiction;"

not directly relevant to this specific discussion, but just because it is fun. keep that quote in mind while you consider a name: Stackpole.

"Tabletop has issues..."

Which you seem to never see fit to actually point out. You'd rather just claim them and than act like anyone who dares to ask you what you're talking about must think the TT is perfect (even when they repeatedly say they don't think it is).

blinkin, on 18 April 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

yeah, you can do all of that stuff in table top too. in TT there is no heat cost for boating weapons and there are many stock mechs that are built solely around that concept and the inherent cheese, like for example the "piranha": 12 machine guns that produce 0.00 heat and deal 24 damage on a chasis that goes 151 kph.

^^
@Pht: yeah totally balanced, absolutely no room for improvement here.

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

• 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.
  
• 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.

"even you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond a handful of rule books."

Not true. In fact, you can't even know this. You can only have assumed it. Besides which, this flatly ignores the fact that the basic combat mechanic is virtually unchanged since the very first version of the game back when it was known as battledroids.

"pick and choose as what I allow as lore" - I suppose than you feel perfectly ok picking and choosing what things that you can't possibly know to post, than.

Unless, of course, you're omniscient and can know things about me that I've not posted. I have, in fact, before this post, not said anything about what is canon and what is not.

I HAVE very specifically said what defines the MW video game genre.

However, if you want to discuss what's canon and what's not, the above link determines what is canon and what is not. You'll see it happens to agree with what I've posted about what defines the MW video game genre.

i am the one that defined this a canon discussion? have you even read your OP? is this how you conduct all of your debates? saying and doing things and then blaming those things you said and did on the other person?

and that would be YOUR opinion of what defines the MW genre. many of us find the direct ironsight style control of mech weapons to be a major defining feature.

In the massed-musket firing you're describing nobody knew what they would hit unless they were at virtually point blank range.

In the system in the OP you can know if you will hit your target or not out to the horizon.

Your comparison is false.

why is it false? you can aim high and have a chance of hitting the upper portions of the persons body. you can take a standard shot and have a higher chance of hitting somewhere on the enemy target. you knew the basic direction of your shot. you pointed the barrel and rolled to hit.

[/list]Again. The skills which CAN NOT be in the game without simulating the 'mech's weapons handling. so, no.


Heat is not in the system as an aiming factor. It does not affect the 'mech's ability to bring the weapons to bear simply because there is no simulation of the 'mechs ability to bring it's weapons to bear.

does spamming that statement change the fact that it is still a simple yes/no decision on whether to pull the trigger? in the game currently it still very often figures into the basic decision of whether the trigger should be pulled or not. also like i have said many times before i think we need more in depth heat penalties based on the TT heat scale, but like i also said before, such things do not require your absurd system.

Environment/terrain, is, again, not in the system as a factor that affect the 'mech's capabilites. For the same reason; ditto for target movement, self movement, and damage to self.

so because they don't directly follow your moronic system they aren't there? i will have to take a second look because i could have swore mechs move and that hinders aim.

all of those things are there and they affect the player's aim and the aiming decisions the player makes, because THE MECH DOESN'T AIM FOR YOU.

It is impossible for these mental skills to be in the game because the thing factored for is not even present.

it is impossible for players to have trouble hitting targets that they can't see very well through the trees? difficulty aiming because both mechs move?

the only vallid case you have here is damage, and for that matter i would like to see damage effects to different motors and locking systems.

Again asserting things you don't know. I guess doing this is easier than sticking to what people have posted.

The video game series has a known defintion and said definition has necessary consequences that are unescapable if one wishes to be rational (sane).

If not, than it would be equally valid to say that the series could be literally anything and still be "mechwarrior."

yup anything, like your absurd system that goes against everything that the mechwarrior series has held sacred for years.

just because i enjoy making people eat their own words:

Pht, on 18 April 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

What's odd is why you feel the urge to try and change a well-established game that people like when there are other mech/a games out there that suit your desires

I'm not going to guess what you mean when you've been ambiguous. I see no point in trying to refute something that may well not even be your own position.

"dice decide" - the dice don't decide. Your skills with the mouse and your choices decide if your shots hit. You are not forced as to what conditions you have to fire under.

except when the dice tell you to f*** off because an easy shot happened to pop up snake eyes. your skills involve choosing the basic target and then waiting to pull the trigger until the dice modifiers are about good enough for you.

Rolls which are predictable. Rolls which can be controlled. Which are nothing more than a math mechanic which player skill can manipulate.

Not a boogeyman who wants to eat your appendages off.

rolls are by definition not predictable, otherwise they wouldn't be called rolls. unless you are playing with loaded dice you don't get to control the roll. you can shift it in your favor, but the ones will always remain on both of the dice.

"aim" ... Ok, fine, the definition you just quoted fits perfectly what the player does in the OP.

He directs the weapons in the 'mech with his joystick and his choices.

holy crap i need a screen shot. you actually sort of admitted what your system does.


Again, what do you mean by "do everything perfectly?" If you don't know what you mean well enough to explain it, why did you even post it?

The only reasons you miss something 2 hex away when you are both stationary is when you're both extremely overheated or you're using the advanced rules and thus damage to your 'mech has severely degraded your 'mech and it's weapons; or you're trying to use a weapon under it's minimum range and you're severely overheated.

You have to do something utterly stupid to miss in said situation.

or get a crap roll on the dice.

The eve system is not "my system." In eve online you do not have to manipulate the reticule at all. I quite clearly posted that a player has to manipulate the reticule and that a battlemech is not allowed to track a target.

ok there is the ONE difference. still doesn't justify taking everything else away from the player for no reason. i like the current system because it has MORE than one difference from the Eve system.

No, I don't mean just like the LRM.

You will never be able to refute anyone if you don't bother to determine what they mean; and you have a track record so far of not asking what I mean - you've habitually just assumed something and attached it to me.
----
I am perfectly happy to explain things in different ways until people understand them.

your explanation looked like a perfect description of how LRM work. just lock, fire and hope that the shot (substitute for missile in this case) lands somewhere on the target.

you are perfectly happy to keep repeating yourself without saying anything new and post links to things i have already read.

[Elyam]

This gets to be just like MMOs. We need two different server sets running two differing play mechanics. For everyone who want a BT/MW game with the deviation layer removed (i.e., as MWO is now), by all means, have it. I just think it's a darned shame that the resources don't exist to also allow those of us who do want the deviation layer (i.e, a true reproduction of BT/MW, its systems and its innate diminished technology base) to have parallel servers running our desired mechanics. Let them both run, see over the long haul whose customer base increases and whose wanes. Too bad we won't get the chance. This time anyway.

[blinkin]

Elyam, on 25 July 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

This gets to be just like MMOs. We need two different server sets running two differing play mechanics. For everyone who want a BT/MW game with the deviation layer removed (i.e., as MWO is now), by all means, have it. I just think it's a darned shame that the resources don't exist to also allow those of us who do want the deviation layer (i.e, a true reproduction of BT/MW, its systems and its innate diminished technology base) to have parallel servers running our desired mechanics. Let them both run, see over the long haul whose customer base increases and whose wanes. Too bad we won't get the chance. This time anyway.

if you really want that pure a tabletop experience they have an alternative that is on computer: https://mwtactics.com/landing/

i have considered downloading it a few times myself, because it looks like a very fun top down strategy game.

i have no issue with having a pure set of tabletop mechanics, but in general they are far too simplistic for a first person game where you play a mechwarrior. a system like this would not be fun for me because there is simply not enough to do. this game is based on that very well known and loved franchise. the mercs series gave me my start and many others who came here also came from the mechwarrior background as well.

[Elyam]

blinkin, allowing action-based, choice-based, and damaged-system-based deviation to fire control in MWO can work. Player skill widens to include knowing all of the factors that increase and decrease the deviation in order to overcome it better than the foe. I just can't agree that it has no place simply due to the FPS perspective and competition online goal. The idea that it can't be tuned to provide a really great and challenging experience...I can't agree to that. These failures and inaccuracies of systems are such a key part of the BT universe. Please for a moment consider the benefits if it could be done. The forethought and multiple considerations while fighting...it would so distinguish the game from anything else produced, and it would really be BT/MW.

Edited by Elyam, 26 July 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[Mackman]

Elyam, on 26 July 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

blinkin, allowing action-based, choice-based, and damaged-system-based deviation to fire control in MWO can work. Player skill widens to include knowing all of the factors that increase and decrease the deviation in order to overcome it better than the foe. I simply can't agree that it has no place simply due to the FPS perspective and competition online goal. The idea that it can't be tuned to provide a really great and challenging experience...I can't agree to that. These failures and inaccuracies of systems are such a key part of the BT universe. Please for a moment consider the benefits if it could be done. The forethought and multiple considerations while fighting...it would so distinguish the game from anything else produced, and it would really be BT/MW.

Could it work in a game tailor-made from the very beginning to be that game? Sure. I wouldn't actually play that game, but it could work.

But what you're describing involves a fundamental re-working of everything about MWO. It involves them scrapping their entire combat system (which is pretty much all the game is), and replacing it with something else.

And at the end of the day, you'd have a game where where literally all that's left to do is move around, hover your reticule over a target (like Streaks and LRMs), and decide when to fire. And sometimes you hit, sometimes you don't, and you only have a limited control over the outcome.

That's not enough to keep players' interest. That's not enough to make a fun game (at least, for those who currently enjoy MWO's combat). It wouldn't be fun to play, and just as importantly for a hopeful e-sport, it would be boring as hell to watch.

[Elyam]

Well Mackman I wouldn't want it to occur as you described there either. That's more of the take you and blinkin have on Pht's posts. I think Pht means it differently as well. And you're right, MWO can't be torn down and rebuilt at this stage to do this. But one day someone will try it with another iteration of BT/MW. We'll continue to disagree on it's potential for success.

(edited to fix typos)

Edited by Elyam, 26 July 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[Pht]

Mackman, on 25 July 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

... with the immediate follow-up being, "Well, yeah, after you get the reticule on target then it's pretty much fully automated."

There is no automation.

Quote

You can do everything right and still miss,...

Nope.

2 on 2d6 = 100% hit rate.

Above 2: 3= 97.22%, 4=91.67%, 5=81.33 and 6=72.22%

So, untill you get to 7s, you virtually never miss; and it's player choices that determine what you have to roll.

Quote

He understands you fine. I understand you fine. It's just that your system is a garbage system for what this game is marketed as: A 'thinking-person's shooter" and "a AAA shooter experience." A "shooter", in particular, implies a degree of control over the actual shooting that is faaaaaar greater than what you want. You're the interloper trying to turn this game into something it's not, something it was never intended to be: Stop acting as though that's not the case.

This would mean something, if I had actually posted that the developers intended the game as something other than a shooter... and I never have.

Quote

This wouldn't be at all fun for the people who currently enjoy MWO's current combat system

Yes, nobody who enjoys the fps/shooter combat mechanic, could ever possibly enjoy an armored combat simulator.

It must be true, after all, because ... you posted that it is.

Quote

Indeed, the combat system is what's going to draw the non-TT crowd come release day, and that's the thing that will keep this game alive.

... and now you're somehow all-knowing. You must be, if you think you can know the future.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 25 July 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

you posted repeatedly that it was "not fire and forget" and "you need to keep the reticle on target"

Which does not mean that you need to maintain lock after firing. You added your assumption and attributed it to me.

no i am perfectly fine with those things because they can be properly understood and predicted. a random number generator or dice roll cannot.

Yes. It can. Unless you wish to deny math. Or do you really wish to say that we can't know that in a computer rng, we can't know that you have a 100% chance to roll 2 or more on 2 virtual d6?

do you know how i used to beat boss battles on some of the old RPGs? if it was an extremely difficult boss battle but still there was a chance of victory, i would simply repeat the boss battle until those weighted dice rolls ruled in my favor. it didn't matter that i generally made the exact same choices repeatedly. eventually i would always win because that is the nature of random number generators or dice. sometimes the dice allow you to be an unbeatable god and other times the dice make you into a completely inept fool. that is the nature of dice and random number generators regardless of how you weight the numbers.

Dice rollers in software are not intrinsically such that they always must produce the "unbeatable god or completely inept fool."

It all depends on how the combat system that the dice roll in determine success.

You're basically saying that a system that rolls a virtual d6 and has the rule of "roll more than 2 and you succeed" would be a system that would have an equal chance of destroying you or making you insanely successful.

i just found something fun on this front. direct from sarna (specifically the page on what is defined as "canon") http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon :
"In summary, in the case of contradicting canonical information,

Novel Fiction trumps Sourcebook Fiction;"

And right below it:

detailed information trumps general information;

later sources trump earlier sources (see also Retcon below).

The Techmanual and CBT companion tech writeups are the most detailed sources on how the 'mechs work. Besides which:

The rule for continuity review of new material is that:

1) Rules take precedence

2) Fluff and novels are next

3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain

4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications

5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.

So, if the writer of a new novel turned in a draft to fact checkers that said, "The MechWarrior plotted his next shot with the cockpit's Ouija board," the fact checkers would, by default, turn to Tech Manual for its description of how BattleMech fire control works and provide proper references for the author to correct his error.

Now, if the writer pointed out that a (hypothetical) rule in Total Warfare specified BattleMech fire control was to be handled with a Ouija board, then the rules would take precedence over the fluff. But until contradicted by the rules (or overridden by someone at a higher pay grade), the "fluff" of Tech Manual, Strategic Operations, etc., is very much enforced during continuity reviews.

That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions. (Not directly - such continuity commentary is subject to editorial / line developer oversight. See point 5, above.) As it stands, Tech Manual has the current descriptions of how BattleMech weaponry and movement is controlled and writers stick to that.

http://bg.battletech....html#msg591660

Directly from an original source. IE: more authoritative than sarna; a secondary source.

not directly relevant to this specific discussion, but just because it is fun. keep that quote in mind while you consider a name: Stackpole.

And stackpole's fusion engines going into meltdown and exploding as minuature nuclear bombs is specifically said to not even be possible by the TM lore. If memory serves, ditto with the CBT:Comp lore; both the most detailed descriptions in the lore on the topic.

yeah, you can do all of that stuff in table top too. in TT there is no heat cost for boating weapons and there are many stock mechs that are built solely around that concept and the inherent cheese, like for example the "piranha": 12 machine guns that produce 0.00 heat and deal 24 damage on a chasis that goes 151 kph.

Boating does have a heat cost. More weapons fired = more heat buildup; and for those weapons with very low heat, they're balanced by the fact that they're heavier than heat intensive weapons, they usually require ammunition (that can blow your mech to shreds), and that they STILL suffer from the heat induced pentalties.

^^
@Pht: yeah totally balanced, absolutely no room for improvement here.

in TT you either hit a mech or you don't.
Glancing hits = partial hit; half damage.


i am the one that defined this a canon discussion? have you even read your OP? is this how you conduct all of your debates? saying and doing things and then blaming those things you said and did on the other person?

and that would be YOUR opinion of what defines the MW genre. many of us find the direct ironsight style control of mech weapons to be a major defining feature.

Yes. You're the one that defined it as a canon discussion, Right here:

i like the CANON methods that have been established over several decades and many different MECHWARRIOR games. did the mechwarrior series do everything perfect, of course not, but the table top has had plenty of issues. even you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond a handful of rule books.

the difference between you and me is i don't pick and choose what i allow as lore. the BT universe is huge and you just look like an *** when you declare yourself as the final judge on what is or isn't allowed to be lore. unless you OWN THE IP shut up with all of your self worship and judgements on what is or isn't official.

Here you have very specifically discussed the topic of what is and what is not allowed as lore. "canon" discussions are about what is and what is not lore. You brought it up. The OP doesn't even discuss what is and what is not in the lore.

why is it false?

Becausen as you specifically pointed out that the musket fire is completely unpredictable; you don't even know if you're going to hit your target. which is right, in refernce to smoothbore muskets until you're at almost point-blank range. The maximum range at which muskets are of ANY use is 100 yards; 150 at the bleeding edge extreme ... you could aim at a man-sized stationary target 50-80 yards away, have it perfectly center of mass ... and miss. Think paintball type accuracy. You had no idea if you would even hit your target.

The OP system allows you to know under the proper conditions that you will hit a targeted mech that is 35 miles away.

With muskets you didn't know. With the OP system you do. Mutual exclusivity. AKA, false.

does spamming that statement change the fact that it is still a simple yes/no decision on whether to pull the trigger?

I haven't said that it's not a choice between shoot/don't shoot. In fact, I even posted that these skills involve choices. Repeating it also doesn't change the fact that you have to know how your current heat level will affect your mech so you can even begin to make an informed choice here.

in the game currently it still very often figures into the basic decision of whether the trigger should be pulled or not.

I did not say that heat has no affect at all in any sense. I very specifically pointed out that heat has no affect on the 'mech's ability to bring it's weapons to bear.

so because they don't directly follow your moronic system they aren't there?

No. Because you can't have conditions that affect a 'mechs ability to bring it's weapons to bear when there is no "mech ability to bring it's weapons to bear" to effect.

all of those things are there and they affect the player's aim...

I didn't post that it affects the players aim.

the only vallid case you have here is damage, and for that matter i would like to see damage effects to different motors and locking systems.

By what standard do you determine that this case is valid and the others aren't?

just because i enjoy making people eat their own words:
I was pointing out that he wanted to change the Lore, not the video game series; as is obvious from his post at the time:

Actually, I think battletech is ripe for a new edition with new rules that by default assumes convergence and player-selected hit locations by default. That isn't necessarily easy to do - trying to translate all the "old" mechs to the new format would be difficult, for example. You either make it a complete retcon, or you advance the timeline one or two centuries. And I have quite clearly been pointing out that the MW video games that have been released so far have *never* gotten it right as far as having the 'mechs perform in combat like they do in the lore.

except when the dice tell you to f*** off because an easy shot happened to pop up snake eyes. your skills involve choosing the basic target and then waiting to pull the trigger until the dice modifiers are about good enough for you.

An easy shot is a 2, aka, 100% hitting. It is impossible to roll under 2 on 2d6.

rolls are by definition not predictable, otherwise they wouldn't be called rolls. unless you are playing with loaded dice you don't get to control the roll. you can shift it in your favor, but the ones will always remain on both of the dice.

So, you can't predict that on 2d6 you'll always roll between 1 and 13 (i.e. 2 and 12)?

holy crap i need a screen shot. you actually sort of admitted what your system does.

Yeah. That the player aims; by your own quoted definition.

or get a crap roll on the dice.

Nope. Stationary two hex away with non-minium ranged weapons = You have to roll more than negative one ( -1) on 2d6 which will always roll 2 or higher. It is impossible to miss in the situation you outlined without other factors than the dice interveining.

ok there is the ONE difference. ...

Yes; the difference of player skill being supreme instead of avatar skills or ship builds. If you can't keep the reticule in the right spot, you don't even have a chance of hitting.

...still doesn't justify taking everything else away from the player for no reason.

I gave very specific reasons that justify actually having a battlemech combat game actually have battlemechs be a part of the combat aiming equation; specifically that it would add more depth to the game and give more reward for human skill. It doesn't matter if you disagree; I did give reasons.

your explanation looked like a perfect description of how LRM work. just lock, fire and hope that the shot (substitute for missile in this case) lands somewhere on the target.

No, it didn't. You added your assumptions to the description, instead of asking first if something not actually posted was also meant.

Edited by Pht, 26 July 2013 - 04:15 PM.

[Pht]

Mackman, on 26 July 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Could it work in a game tailor-made from the very beginning to be that game? Sure. I wouldn't actually play that game, but it could work.

Which brings up the question - what about how you're perceiving the system would make it a game you wouldn't play?

Quote

But what you're describing involves a fundamental re-working of everything about MWO. It involves them scrapping their entire combat system (which is pretty much all the game is), and replacing it with something else.

The combat mechanic is not the entire game. In fact, you'd still use raytracing; you'd still use the hitbox setups; you'd still have to check and see if any weapons ports are occluded by terrain or features.

The only difference would be an added database mechanic in the server and collecting a few more bits of information from the clients (and actually you woudln't have to have network traffic for every single weapon fired at any instance).

Quote

And at the end of the day, you'd have a game where where literally all that's left to do is move around, hover your reticule over a target (like Streaks and LRMs), and decide when to fire. And sometimes you hit, sometimes you don't, and you only have a limited control over the outcome.

A perfect description of every FPS/Shooter multiplayer game ever made. Network lag and server speed and your computer's speed/fps rendering is supreme; and those you have zero control over; games in which you put the reticule (if you have the skill with the mouse) exactly where you want it, and hope the server hands out your damage as you percieved it on your end.

Edited by Pht, 26 July 2013 - 04:21 PM.

[Marmon Rzohr]

I'm glad to see this topic brought back to life especially with so many balance discussions going on

MWO is a sim and should be refined and balanced by adding more "realism" to it. The game as it is allows for unrealistic builds because it's not realistic enough to discourage them.

I think a lof points have been missed though...

1) The advantage of making the game more like TT is having a lot of balancing work already done for you

2) Quite a bit of people read this and thought it's about adding dice rolling to MWO. Adding randomness. Making it like a MMORPG with hit chances and all.

- Nope.

The point of the mech's systems is to REMOVE randomness and stop well aimed shots missing. Here we have a problem. What would the system compensate for in the current game ? Perhaps it could show you where to aim to hit a moving target, but other than that, there's not much reason for it.... because there are no realistic factors inhibiting aiming !

Yes, you are playing a realistic FPS in which no weapon has recoil and even while sprinting the crosshair is always perfectly still allowing for perfect aim !!

(JJ are a wonderful exception to this, as are lasers which are supposed to be dead perfect, but require tracking)

Think what CoD would look like if things were like this.

If recoil, crosshair waver from moving are implemented:

- No more dead accurate high alpha peek and shooting (not without great effort and timing, which makes it balanced)
- Suddenly LBX weapons spread makes sense because it guarantees a hit an close ranges even if your aim isn't perfect. (kind the point of the weapon)
- A targeting system is now a needed thing. Implementation can take inspiration in the form of a simple system. The longer you aim on a target and the longer you're standing still the less the crosshair moves because the computers have time to compensate and ultimately make your crosshair and convergence as perfect as it is now. Like pausing to aim and crouch in any other FPS.

Simple. Effective on multiple problems the game now has.
(Suddenly the fire and forget LRMs and tagging come into play as desirable since (shockingly) shooting something at long range requires more skill and more compensation then just pointing and clicking (as it does now, barring compensation for movement)
(Also brawling becomes a bit more attractive because aiming up close is easier, and SRMs, LBXes and Lasers all virtually guarantee some hits even when moving at speed)

Cheers

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 29 July 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[Mackman]

Pht, on 26 July 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

A perfect description of every FPS/Shooter multiplayer game ever made. Network lag and server speed and your computer's speed/fps rendering is supreme; and those you have zero control over; games in which you put the reticule (if you have the skill with the mouse) exactly where you want it, and hope the server hands out your damage as you percieved it on your end.

And if this is noticeable, if these factors influence game-play to any large degree, it's universally recognized as the death of a fun, competitive game. That's probably why PGI has dedicated so much of their time and effort into eradicating this randomness.

I hope you recognize how truly absurd it is to bring this up, in defense of your system which purposely introduces more randomness and less control. Limitations of a system are in no way a valid reason for purposely implementing further, more impactful limitations. Careful, dude: You're straying dangerously close to outright trolling with that comparison.

[Pht]

Mackman, on 29 July 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

hope you recognize how truly absurd it is to bring this up, in defense of your system which purposely introduces more randomness and less control.

So, if the mech is better simulated, that's "randomness," ... if the 'mech's actual physical bringing the weapons to bear and the 'mechs actual T&T ability is put into the game, that's "less control" and by that extension bad;

If the 'mech takes enough part in the overall aiming function enough to be something that takes human skill to account for, thats bad... is what you're trying to say?

Quote

Careful, dude: You're straying dangerously close to outright trolling with that comparison.

Not even close. Pointing out a gaping hole in someone's argument is not trolling. The exact same factors you're saying make a game unworthy of being played have existed in the net and computing factors and most likely always will.

You gave a standard to judge by; I simply properly applied your standard to something you hadn't and showed that it works against virtually every single real-time multiplayer game that's ever been made.


I'd still like to know, what about how you're perceiving the system would make it a game you wouldn't play?

[Mackman]

Pht, on 30 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

So, if the mech is better simulated, that's "randomness," ... if the 'mech's actual physical bringing the weapons to bear and the 'mechs actual T&T ability is put into the game, that's "less control" and by that extension bad;

If the 'mech takes enough part in the overall aiming function enough to be something that takes human skill to account for, thats bad... is what you're trying to say?


Not even close. Pointing out a gaping hole in someone's argument is not trolling. The exact same factors you're saying make a game unworthy of being played have existed in the net and computing factors and most likely always will.

You gave a standard to judge by; I simply properly applied your standard to something you hadn't and showed that it works against virtually every single real-time multiplayer game that's ever been made.

I'd still like to know, what about how you're perceiving the system would make it a game you wouldn't play?

Lag is a bad thing. Nobody likes lag. Nobody likes it when things are taken out of their control. That's why PGI has put such an emphasis on improving hit registration and all the other network problems they had early on. A game that has bad enough lag is, indeed, not worthy of being played. That's probably why competitive video games are played, when possible, on a LAN as opposed to the internet (and why Nintendo's craptastic version of online play was a failure from the start).

So when you take the fact of lag and use it to say that adding additional randomness is good, that's dishonest. It's similar to saying "Sometimes people in the real world starve to death: That means that taking steps to ensure that people are hungry is a good thing!" We try to fix lag, because it's bad: You want to add additional randomness, and you're using lag to defend it.


And yes, for the last time, your version of a mech simulator would introduce additional randomness to the game. Are you seriously trying to deny it? It's randomness with a purpose, yes, but still randomness.

I started playing this game because of what PGI advertised it as: a "thinking man's shooter." I want to have direct control of my mech in a manner inconsistent with the larger universe, and I'm not afraid to say it. Do you know why? Because this game was built, from the ground up, to offer a degree of control inconsistent with the larger universe, and it was advertised as such. (by virtue of being called a "shooter")

I don't want my mech to take into account the enemy mechs' speed, its cover, or my speed, before determining whether I hit it or not. Do you know why? Because I am already doing all of that myself.That's what "aiming" is, and that's what I enjoy about MWO. Your combat system is sterilized and boring, and I would not enjoy it even a little bit. Even a standard CoF would be better.