130 replies to this topic

[Schwarzer Adler]

Paladin1, on 09 August 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

That was Stackpole and he did that for some of the battles in the Warrior Trilogy and the Return of Kerensky Trilogy. He was also the author who destroyed Clan Smoke Jaguar because of a rabid fanboi who wouldn't shut up about how awesome CSJ was...

Seriously? Man, I DO love that guy!

[Scurry MacLeod]

VxSaAgE, on 09 August 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

did TT players whine about MW1-4 too? I'm curious to know.

no mech lab in mw1, so no gripes
mw 2 and 3, lab was just like the TT, no problems there
mw 4 - every single excuse they gave for "portalizing" (any MTG players out there from before 6th ed will understand that term) the lab, all were shot down with how it ended up working.. there were TONS of threads complaining about it not fitting the game as it was known, and basically all we got from the devs from M$ were ****, we know whats best.

as far as how things work "in action", you really can't do a straight TT to sim conversion and most things did fit the spirt of the rules if they didn't fit the letter (for the most part, the "one leg kills" in mw3 were a pain),

[Paladin1]

Congzilla, on 09 August 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

MekHQ was an awesome addition for campaigns. I do wish there was an option to use the warchest system instead though.

I had completely forgotten about that, but now that you mention it I have to admit that it's a great addition to the game. I'm not keen on the warchest system though, I prefer a more detailed game than that. (Why yes, I can tell you how many No. 2 pencils my quartermaster battalion uses each month! I even have a list of how many packs of printer paper they use for office admin duties each week.)

[Incunabulum]

Resist The Dawn, on 09 August 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

One thing I've noticed a lot on this forum is the Tabletop Players getting really bent out of shape about changes to the TT rules. While I will not discuss these changes here due to NDA and all that,

What I don't understand is why It is such a big deal,

since they change these rules to improve the gameplay.

2 points here

1. Its a big deal because those of us who would complain the loudest about the changes want to play an in-cockpit simulator of the boardgame, not "MechAssault"

2. Changes to the rules may be intended by the devs to improve gameplay - that doesn't mean that the devs are in-sync with the players. Steerrable jumping and mechs being destroyed after the loss of a single leg are both "improvements" in earlier games, doesn't mean any of the players liked them.

[Congzilla]

Paladin1, on 09 August 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

I had completely forgotten about that, but now that you mention it I have to admit that it's a great addition to the game. I'm not keen on the warchest system though, I prefer a more detailed game than that. (Why yes, I can tell you how many No. 2 pencils my quartermaster battalion uses each month! I even have a list of how many packs of printer paper they use for office admin duties each week.)

My problem was how broken and cumbersome the repair system felt.

[theRealMithril]

I've played all MW PC games (that I know of) so far (played TT only a limited times way way back too) but honestly.. I do understand the need for tweaking when it comes to real time game play. TT rules (for any game) only mostly work for TT, it very rarely translate well to actual realtime computer gameplay. I mean, where to draw the line? The game needs to be fun and accessible for the majority.. and those are usually not TT players (like it or not) If I am to be really picky, why allow hundreds of missiles in a mech? It is pure madness.. but.. it makes for fun game play. See the difference? Personally I don't see the need to be all worked up about it. The main thing is that they stay true to the BattleTech universe and the spirit of it. As long as I feel that it is a vivid representation of that world, I am happy. But that is my own personal opinion.

[DreyfussFrost]

Battletech is turn-based, and MechWarrior is real-time. That fact by itself is enough to justify several rule changes. You can't just say 1 turn equals whatever time unit and expect the balance to remain the same. There's also the fact that mechs are now manually controlled and not subject to dice rolls. That requires even further balance changes.

I support sticking to the source material wherever possible, but there's a difference between changing something just for the sake of making it different (bad) and changing something in a way that improves it while keeping in the spirit and core mechanics of the source (good).

[Odanan]

"Why sticking to TT rules is so importante?" - because Battletech is a living world and we want it simulated as it is.

TT rules should always be the guide for MW games because choosing to make the weapons and mechs "as you wish" (like in MW4) is like having a Counter Strike with 60 shot AK-47 and sniping MP-5s...

TheBaron, on 09 August 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

I support sticking to the source material wherever possible, but there's a difference between changing something just for the sake of making it different (bad) and changing something in a way that improves it while keeping in the spirit and core mechanics of the source (good).

This.

[Congzilla]

One thing they could do very simply to help it feel more like tt without effecting game play is change the map overlay from squares to hexes, that drives me frickin' nuts.

[Alex Iglesias]

Allow me to throw in my 2 cbills as being someone on both sides of the aisles

Battletech rules are fine and dandy for what they are. A turn based sci fi minis game all about killing opponents by degrees in a myriad of different ways, with a high level of granularity and detail.

The phrase some things don't translate well is pretty much a dead horse, but lets get into the why of that.

For example.

Battletech rules originally....

-Don't differentiate between the ease of aiming projectiles vs energy weapons
-abstract the aiming and guidance power of missiles to a great extent.
-Have all weapons have the same recycle rate, abstracting certain fast firing weapons as hitting 1 location (mgs) and others, multiple (ultras/racs, hags)
-feature a lot of fairly consistent knockdowns (20 damage pilot skill checks) ,and potential pilot knockouts
-have an unusually high level of miss chance or a really low level of pilot skill
-don't factor in the size of a mech, (barring quads, protos, and colossals) only it's speed
-don't normally factor in limitations or abilities or factors implied by the art or fluff
-don't factor in kinetic knock
-allow for easier grand view strategic planning inherent in knowing where all your units are at any given time
-have weapons/mechs/general equipment that are flat out better,balanced by not being able to field as much vs cheaper alternatives
-have range play a far greater role as it also affects hit chance, as well as range brackets being much easier to manage with the benefit of deliberate turn based gameplay
-don't factor in groupfired weapons mounted adjacent to each other.
-don't factor in ballistic drop
-don't factor in projectile speed or time to target (aside from artillery from 1 or more mapsheets away)
-don't factor in handling characteristics aside from speed
-don't factor in the size or placement of the head, in fact allowing for mechs with forward mounted cockpits to be hit from the rear somehow

once you switch into real time however certain things simply break down if or when taken verbatim.
For starters
-Range tends to lose some of it's importance in mw games since players are generally more accurate, and anything that cannot throw out enough damage to keep someone at a distance or themselves backpedal fast enough to maintain will get overrun far more easily
-10 seconds can feel like an eternity in real time
-anything with no guidance and a projectile speed will require more effort to hit with than a laser, even if on paper they have the same range..
-having all weapons be based on 10 second recycle speeds is simply not an option as it would feel sluggish and unnatural
-fast firing weapons, i.e. mgs are extremely unlikely to hit one location unless both parties are stationary.
-bigger targets are easier to hit
-things that were simply aesthetic factors now matter, alot, and can affect the survivability of a unit.
-things like the minimum range penalties of direct fire ballistic weapons like ac5s or gauss rifles, become extremely bizarre to portray, in most cases avoided
-cockpit shape, size, and placement suddenly matters
-weapon placement matters (k2s shooting over cover that an awesome or atlas would shoot into) namely the height of the weapon relative to the mech.
-having consistent repeatable knockdowns suddenly opens the doors towards towards stun-lock configs
-being that you are the pilot not an omniscient commander makes your personal experience different, since you are tailoring your vehicle, not your entire team's, and you are only fully aware of what you are doing, less so your teammates (unless you are some super 1337 clan that has drilled together for years or something).

All these differences and more require careful tailoring of rules and values to make the gameplay work. And there are no easy solutions, it requires a lot of iterative work and some artistic license to see what works and what doesn't, while remaining true to the spirit of the rules if not always the letter.

[Congzilla]

Thanks for the reply but what is the excuse for using squares instead of hexes on the map overlay, that is blasphemy!

[Atlai]

Great reply Alex, hope that cleared up it all.

[Assiah]

Alex Iglesias, on 09 August 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Allow me to throw in my 2 cbills as being someone on both sides of the aisles

Battletech rules are fine and dandy for what they are. A turn based sci fi minis game all about killing opponents by degrees in a myriad of different ways, with a high level of granularity and detail.

The phrase some things don't translate well is pretty much a dead horse, but lets get into the why of that.

For example.

Battletech rules originally....

-Don't differentiate between the ease of aiming projectiles vs energy weapons
-abstract the aiming and guidance power of missiles to a great extent.
-Have all weapons have the same recycle rate, abstracting certain fast firing weapons as hitting 1 location (mgs) and others, multiple (ultras/racs, hags)
-feature a lot of fairly consistent knockdowns (20 damage pilot skill checks) ,and potential pilot knockouts
-have an unusually high level of miss chance or a really low level of pilot skill
-don't factor in the size of a mech, (barring quads, protos, and colossals) only it's speed
-don't normally factor in limitations or abilities or factors implied by the art or fluff
-don't factor in kinetic knock
-allow for easier grand view strategic planning inherent in knowing where all your units are at any given time
-have weapons/mechs/general equipment that are flat out better,balanced by not being able to field as much vs cheaper alternatives
-have range play a far greater role as it also affects hit chance, as well as range brackets being much easier to manage with the benefit of deliberate turn based gameplay
-don't factor in groupfired weapons mounted adjacent to each other.
-don't factor in ballistic drop
-don't factor in projectile speed or time to target (aside from artillery from 1 or more mapsheets away)
-don't factor in handling characteristics aside from speed
-don't factor in the size or placement of the head, in fact allowing for mechs with forward mounted cockpits to be hit from the rear somehow

once you switch into real time however certain things simply break down if or when taken verbatim.
For starters
-Range tends to lose some of it's importance in mw games since players are generally more accurate, and anything that cannot throw out enough damage to keep someone at a distance or themselves backpedal fast enough to maintain will get overrun far more easily
-10 seconds can feel like an eternity in real time
-anything with no guidance and a projectile speed will require more effort to hit with than a laser, even if on paper they have the same range..
-having all weapons be based on 10 second recycle speeds is simply not an option as it would feel sluggish and unnatural
-fast firing weapons, i.e. mgs are extremely unlikely to hit one location unless both parties are stationary.
-bigger targets are easier to hit
-things that were simply aesthetic factors now matter, alot, and can affect the survivability of a unit.
-things like the minimum range penalties of direct fire ballistic weapons like ac5s or gauss rifles, become extremely bizarre to portray, in most cases avoided
-cockpit shape, size, and placement suddenly matters
-weapon placement matters (k2s shooting over cover that an awesome or atlas would shoot into) namely the height of the weapon relative to the mech.
-having consistent repeatable knockdowns suddenly opens the doors towards towards stun-lock configs
-being that you are the pilot not an omniscient commander makes your personal experience different, since you are tailoring your vehicle, not your entire team's, and you are only fully aware of what you are doing, less so your teammates (unless you are some super 1337 clan that has drilled together for years or something).

All these differences and more require careful tailoring of rules and values to make the gameplay work. And there are no easy solutions, it requires a lot of iterative work and some artistic license to see what works and what doesn't, while remaining true to the spirit of the rules if not always the letter.

Thanks for chimeing in Alex, I think you sum up my feelings on it quite well.

[wizzard]

TheBaron, on 09 August 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

I support sticking to the source material wherever possible, but there's a difference between changing something just for the sake of making it different (bad) and changing something in a way that improves it while keeping in the spirit and core mechanics of the source (good).

+1

For example it is much easier to shoot at a specific location in MWO (or any other MW game) than in the TT game. It needs a little practice but it is not very hard to aim and shot at a leg to slow down or even destroy a mech. In MW2 for example it was the best to only shoot at the legs because a Mech with only one leg was a sitting duck.

In TT you can make an aimed shot but only when your target is immobilized (for example by a heat shutdown). Also linked weapons do not exist in TT. Each weapon is its own dice roll. For example you have 4 med lasers in the left arm and want to shoot them. In the computer games all lasers would hit when the player puts the crosshair in the right spot.

Because of this and others aspects all MW games modified the weapon or armor stats.

[TizZ]

Well TBH if mechwarrior Online Followed the TT game then pilots would stop every 10 meters or so and roll a dice !!!!!!!!! ? That might sound Ridiculous but its an extreme example of how things have to be changed /tweaked for a simulation computer game as apposed to a table top strategy game .

Alex Iglesias, on 09 August 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Allow me to throw in my 2 cbills as being someone on both sides of the aisles

Battletech rules are fine and dandy for what they are. A turn based sci fi minis game all about killing opponents by degrees in a myriad of different ways, with a high level of granularity and detail.

The phrase some things don't translate well is pretty much a dead horse, but lets get into the why of that.

For example.

Battletech rules originally....

-Don't differentiate between the ease of aiming projectiles vs energy weapons
-abstract the aiming and guidance power of missiles to a great extent.
-Have all weapons have the same recycle rate, abstracting certain fast firing weapons as hitting 1 location (mgs) and others, multiple (ultras/racs, hags)
-feature a lot of fairly consistent knockdowns (20 damage pilot skill checks) ,and potential pilot knockouts
-have an unusually high level of miss chance or a really low level of pilot skill
-don't factor in the size of a mech, (barring quads, protos, and colossals) only it's speed
-don't normally factor in limitations or abilities or factors implied by the art or fluff
-don't factor in kinetic knock
-allow for easier grand view strategic planning inherent in knowing where all your units are at any given time
-have weapons/mechs/general equipment that are flat out better,balanced by not being able to field as much vs cheaper alternatives
-have range play a far greater role as it also affects hit chance, as well as range brackets being much easier to manage with the benefit of deliberate turn based gameplay
-don't factor in groupfired weapons mounted adjacent to each other.
-don't factor in ballistic drop
-don't factor in projectile speed or time to target (aside from artillery from 1 or more mapsheets away)
-don't factor in handling characteristics aside from speed
-don't factor in the size or placement of the head, in fact allowing for mechs with forward mounted cockpits to be hit from the rear somehow

once you switch into real time however certain things simply break down if or when taken verbatim.
For starters
-Range tends to lose some of it's importance in mw games since players are generally more accurate, and anything that cannot throw out enough damage to keep someone at a distance or themselves backpedal fast enough to maintain will get overrun far more easily
-10 seconds can feel like an eternity in real time
-anything with no guidance and a projectile speed will require more effort to hit with than a laser, even if on paper they have the same range..
-having all weapons be based on 10 second recycle speeds is simply not an option as it would feel sluggish and unnatural
-fast firing weapons, i.e. mgs are extremely unlikely to hit one location unless both parties are stationary.
-bigger targets are easier to hit
-things that were simply aesthetic factors now matter, alot, and can affect the survivability of a unit.
-things like the minimum range penalties of direct fire ballistic weapons like ac5s or gauss rifles, become extremely bizarre to portray, in most cases avoided
-cockpit shape, size, and placement suddenly matters
-weapon placement matters (k2s shooting over cover that an awesome or atlas would shoot into) namely the height of the weapon relative to the mech.
-having consistent repeatable knockdowns suddenly opens the doors towards towards stun-lock configs
-being that you are the pilot not an omniscient commander makes your personal experience different, since you are tailoring your vehicle, not your entire team's, and you are only fully aware of what you are doing, less so your teammates (unless you are some super 1337 clan that has drilled together for years or something).

All these differences and more require careful tailoring of rules and values to make the gameplay work. And there are no easy solutions, it requires a lot of iterative work and some artistic license to see what works and what doesn't, while remaining true to the spirit of the rules if not always the letter.

Well TBH if mechwarrior Online Followed the TT game then pilots would stop every 10 meters or so and roll a dice !!!!!!!!! ? That might sound Ridiculous but its an extreme example of how things have to be changed /tweaked for a simulation computer game as apposed to a table top strategy game .

[IceSerpent]

Resist The Dawn, on 09 August 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

One thing I've noticed a lot on this forum is the Tabletop Players getting really bent out of shape about changes to the TT rules. While I will not discuss these changes here due to NDA and all that, What I don't understand is why It is such a big deal, since they change these rules to improve the gameplay.

Here's the deal - we want it to be as close to TT as possible, because that's what is being simulated. Just like in WWII flight simulator you would want your P51 to behave as close to the original as possible, in MW game you would want your mech to behave similar to the original. The catch is that there's no real life "original" for a mech, so the canon description/rules is the original, as it is what we try to simulate.
That being said, we all realize that some of the canon can not be translated into a real time simulation verbatim (as Alex described above), so "some rules can be bent, others can be broken". The trick is to only change things that absolutely have to be changed, while keeping as many BT features as we can.

[Leprosyvirus]

I could only imagine the cries of disappointed when clan equipment/omnimechs are introduced and it isn't OP like everyone expects it to be. They are trying to make a balanced fun game that isn't 12 atlai vs 12 atlai or what have you.

[TizZ]

Mechwarrior Online is not a TT game although its based on one and uses the same universe . Just trust the Devs and enjoy the game ppl .

[OrbitalshocK]

because nobody cares about tabletop fans. now that they havea game that sprouted from the realm of tabletop gaming they're all over it. i'm sure magic the gathering and dungeon and dragon kids are the same way, lol.

[Congzilla]

OrbitalshocK, on 09 August 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

because nobody cares about tabletop fans. now that they havea game that sprouted from the realm of tabletop gaming they're all over it. i'm sure magic the gathering and dungeon and dragon kids are the same way, lol.

You win the most ignorant comment in the thread award.