59 replies to this topic

[Ter Ushaka]

Out of bordom, I decided to wade into the forum, run this up the flagpole, and see what sticks to be saluted. What do you feel is more important, rigid adherence to the BT tabletop rules, or bending/breaking some rules to make the game balanced?

[BTone]

It is a video game, so i say game balance

[Corpsecandle]

I voted balance, however as an avid PnP fan (though not in BattleTech), I'd argue that maintaining the spirit of the rules is as important as balance.

[Del Arianni]

I feel that game balance will win out. TT are excellent, but they are optimized for TT not Live Action.

[Bloodycrow]

MWLL already tried it with strict tabletop ranges, damage and armor values, and it was completely unenjoyable to play. It's an easy lesson to learn from, and it seems obvious PGI have already done so simply by looking at the current armor values.

Edited by Bloodycrow, 06 July 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[Project_Mercy]

The two aren't mutally exclusive. TT is (mostly) balanced. You can make a digital version of TT which would be perfectly balanced using TT rules. It isn't until you start changing the game to fit your idea of what the game should be (So, things like pin-point accuracy) that you start breaking the TT rules, at which point things need to be changed to account for these changes.

TT is not some magical world, It does correspond to real-time. A round is an extension of X seconds of real time. MUXs have shown this to work in action.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 06 July 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[KeeperVS]

Corpsecandle, on 06 July 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

I voted balance, however as an avid PnP fan (though not in BattleTech), I'd argue that maintaining the spirit of the rules is as important as balance.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

[Terminal Blue]

I see what you did there, OP.

[Corpsecandle]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 July 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

The two aren't mutally exclusive. TT is (mostly) balanced. You can make a digital version of TT which would be perfectly balanced using TT rules. It isn't until you start changing the game to fit your idea of what the game should be (So, things like pin-point accuracy) that you start breaking the TT rules, at which point things need to be changed to account for these changes.

TT is not some magical world, It does correspond to reality. A round is an extension of X seconds of real time. MUXs have shown this to work in action.

While there may be a direct map from a "round" to real world seconds, exploration often reveals that it just isn't as fun that way. So they need to make some adjustments, which creates deviation, which creates contention. Not to say that you're wrong of course, I'm sure there are successful direct TT to Digital conversion, but it's worth noting there are several legitimate reasons add/remove/adjust TT mechanics for the sake of creating a successful video game.

Edited by Corpsecandle, 06 July 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Bootleg]

I've never played it table top, but I can see how trying to adhere to those rules would make sense. That being said, however, there are things that table top rules can't deal with such as lag, bugs/glitches and exploits. Ideally I would think the best solution to be follow the table top rules whenever you can, but allow for game-balancing when you must.

[Terminal Blue]

I think it all comes down to sticking with the fluff more than the actual rules, to be honest. Nobody wants it to become Armored Core 9: 9 Ball with a 9-iron, but that doesn't mean that TT has to be treated as a perfect fit.

The 'feel' is of course the important part, and ballistic weapons not feeling like cannons of death doesn't feel so right.

[Project_Mercy]

Corpsecandle, on 06 July 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

but it's worth noting there are several legitimate reasons add/remove/adjust TT mechanics for the sake of creating a successful video game.

Eh, depends what your crowd is. Like I said, MUSH/MUXes used a fixed length round perfectly fine. By adjusting the round timing the game becomes more or less tactical. I'll agree with the average button-mashing gamer, that round combat may not be ideal for them. Then again they have a few hundred other games where they can run around and knife people between respawns, so I think it's fair that a little change in this isn't off base.

[Dimestore]

I started with table top originally and it was awesome. Doing it as a video game without breaking the ruleset would require a turn-based system among other changes. Just switching from turn-based to real-time has a massive effect on game balance. Once you start including things like manual aiming vs simple target selection the table-top rules fall appart as written.

That said, you can use the table-top rules as a baseline and only deviate where it helps gameplay. This seems to be the essential approach they have used.

One of the things they've done that I really like is that they've matched the game rules to the world as depicted in the sourcebooks & novels better than the table-top game did. I've detailed my arguement for this in other posts so check my profile if you want the long version.

[Furniture]

Tabletop balance has been maintained over decades of gaming. I don't think it is bad for them to try and keep as true to tabletop as possible. Need I remind you that all of the things that contributed most to game imbalanced through all of the recent MW titles has been because they DEVIATED from the talbetop source material? For example, coolant flushing and unrestricted customizing in MW3. Or the shuffle of weapon DPS in MW4 that caused more problems than it ever fixed. Already, we have a potential problem with MWO because of the rumor of the double-armor value, but no double ammunition-per-ton to make up for it. What good is an AC/20 that damages its opponent like an AC/10 would in tabletop, but only gets 5 shots per ton? Let's think twice before making too many changes.

[Pht]

Mechwarrior game balance CAN NOT be "vs" the tabletop system.

The former comes from the latter. There isn't any versus about it.

Spoiler

Just what does "MechWarrior" mean, by definition and in the context that it is used in?

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

So, "MechWarrior" means someone that pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Obviously, what follows, of necessity, from this definition and the motivation for making the MW video games in the first place is that an MW video game is a game built to simulate what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, in such a manner as to give the player just enough suspension of disbelief so that they can have a good time by mentally "escaping reality" into the BTUniverse for a little while.

If a game claims to be a MechWarrior game but doesn't follow the above definition and pursue the above goal, it's not a MW game. Yeah, there's my darned non-postmodern view on truth popping up. Don't worry, you'll get used to it, I do it a lot... or you may start frothing at the mouth and go insane. You have been warned (again).

Foundation Proper

Where can we validly go to to define the Battletech Universe, and from within that definition, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat? There are three different sources that are usually appealed to.

First, there are the previous MechWarrior video games. Positively, these are useful as examples of how others have tried to implement what it is like to pilot a BTU BattleMech in video game format. However, as far as actually defining the BTUniverse (and within that what it is like to pilot a BattleMech) the previous MW video games are not very good.

First of all, they are derivative instead of foundational works as far as concerns the BTUniverse - they looked elsewhere to get their definition(s), and at times these places were not always the best choices. They are also to some extent built game play upon arbitrary assumptions and concepts that are not always consistent with each other from game to game... meaning that there is no valid reason to choose one idea from any game over another - we may as well flip a coin!

---

Second, there are the Battletech novels and the short stories and "in universe" lore in the various source books for the tabletop game of Battletech. This "story" source is the genesis for much of the BTUniverse lore/information and it is usually more consistent with itself. It can be helpful in knowing conceptually, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, because it is largely free of any limitations that the various game formats necessarily impose.

That said, because of the lack of strict restrictions due to format "fiat" characters and concepts creep in at places - a tool used by authors to achieve their desired outcomes and to otherwise embellish their stories - which means the story overrides all other considerations, so care must be used in deciding what concepts to use. There is also the problem that while this story source is good at giving the concepts of what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, it does not give usable clear definitions in hard "black and white" of how these concepts work.

---

Third, there are the rules that make up the Battletech tabletop game. This system(1984) was released before the novels by two years(1986), and the novels, "fiat" excluded, have not contradicted what the TT system rules "aim at." This system was, as far someone who was not involved in the origination of BT can tell, the genesis of much of the mechanics that exist in the the BTUniverse.

The various rules that make up this system are usually "hard numbers in black and white" and they lay out a fairly comprehensive baseline for BattleMech behavior and performance, and also piloting duties; and as far as seems humanly possible they are not contradictory of each other - or the "story" source either. The downside of these rules that make up this system is that they sometimes do not indicate exactly what it is they are intended to emulate. They also at times make compromises specific to the tabletop turn-based gaming format. The form of the rules do not always work in a video game format - they require translation at times.

Edited by Pht, 06 July 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Aeryk Corsaer]

I have been a TT Btech player from the first year it was out...but really think balance should be a primary issue in a computer online game. Keeping the feel and fluff of Battletech intact while still making it fun (and fair) for all should be the goal of MWO.

[Reoh]

Game Balance. It should still be a BT Universe Mechwarrior game, but allowances should be made.

[Terminal Blue]

I look at it as Fallout 2 vs Fallout 3. Very different games but I think they bridged the gap decently.

In terms of the essential game mechanics, that is. Fallout 3 had plenty of problems but I think the transition to FPS + VATS went fine. Better than say, Fallout 2 to BOS' RTS mode.

[Randal Waide]

Adherence to me means that you have x point of armor for weight, x amount of damage for weapon types and x movement per equipped. It doesn't mean being able to put 47 AC-20s in your left arm and ammo in all of the rest of your slots. In other words, MWO should "feel" like the TT game experience and not be bastardized.
When I pull the trigger on my PPC, I want to feel my cockpit heat up, I want to see the heat indicators go red and I want to see splash damage that tracks across the enemy mech, melting armor off in white hot rivulets. I want to see that mech stagger from the shock and stubble and fall when I breach his torso. I want to crush my enemies, see them driven before me and hear the lamentation of the women.

[Zynk]

Corpsecandle, on 06 July 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

I voted balance, however as an avid PnP fan (though not in BattleTech), I'd argue that maintaining the spirit of the rules is as important as balance.

I agree and I have played PnP battletech.

"maintaining the spirit of the rules is as important as balance"

QFE