468 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

Maurdakar, on 22 March 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

OP your belief that table top rules translate even semi well into a video game is utterly false.

the ignorant extremists on both ends make this debate awesome.

HIM: ALL THINGS MUST BE TABLE TOP RULES EVERYTHING ELSE IS BROKEN!!!11!!!!111!!1

YOU: ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH TABLE TOP RUINS THE GAME!!!!!111!!!!!!11!!!!1!!

this game is based on the original table top rules. all mechwarrior games have drawn from table top, some more than others.

BUT

table top is itself broken in many respects. my brother attempted to balance some of the issues with the game, and a friend of ours looked at the notebook my brother had been using. he described it as "the rantings of a mad man".



so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

[AndyHill]

The streaks we now have aren't really like the tabletop version. Our streaks always hit, tabletop streaks never miss. Our streaks are an effective weapon, tabletop streaks are an efficient weapon. Sounds similar at first, but the functionality is entirely different. It will be much more evident if SSRM6 ever arrives in MWO.

I agree that a rather slow and deliberate pace of combat is what gives BT and MW their own recognizable charm. MWO pace is far faster and instakill-oriented than in the TT version.

TT rules can not be directly translated to a real-time simulator, but they can be used as a starting point and the process can be controlled. Notable things that are completely different in MWO compared to TT: weapon balance, LRMs in general, splash damage, ECM, streaks. Somehow I get the feeling that whenever PGI has deviated strongly from the TT, it has gone more or less wrong, which is why I also feel it would be good to take a second look at the process how it's done and more importantly how a TT to real-time conversion should be done.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, AndryHill i thank you. You made the point... but i can asure you prepare to face ignorance disbelief und lies. all that happened when i brought that idea in german subforums.
your worsest foe is the lack of knowlege. you can stop to discuss when the oposition says that you should use dice.
they Do not know that dice is just statistic and not luck

[PaintedWolf]

Tice Daurus, on 20 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

The DEV's have it correct. OP has it wrong.

I like how they ignore how TT is an abstraction, and how Infinite and Pirhana have followed canon more then any other Mechwarrior game.

[qki]

my stat page says 80% accuracy with streaks, so no dice.

And IMO the game (MWO) needs to follow the lore, not CBT rules - so far, it has.

[CloaknDagger]

PaintedWolf, on 23 March 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

I like how they ignore how TT is an abstraction, and how Infinite and Pirhana have followed canon more then any other Mechwarrior game.

How have they followed canon more than any other game? Other MW games were closer to canon stats, and the autocannons were actually burst fire like in lore.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 23 March 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

blinkin, AndryHill i thank you. You made the point... but i can asure you prepare to face ignorance disbelief und lies. all that happened when i brought that idea in german subforums.
your worsest foe is the lack of knowlege. you can stop to discuss when the oposition says that you should use dice.
they Do not know that dice is just statistic and not luck

in my experience i find it much more likely that they will avoid and hide from things that they don't have any valid arguments against.

Edited by blinkin, 23 March 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[TOGSolid]

For someone crying about the game not being canon, you don't seem to know much about the game or the canon.

1.) The only way to keep TT armor values would be to make all the weapons hit random locations and occasionally miss for no reason every time you pulled the trigger. No thanks.

2.) Lol ******* what? The AC20, AC5, UAC/5, and AC/2 are all quite useable. I will agree that the AC-10 weighs a bit too much and the LB10X is just kinda doody. MGs are lol, but they were lol in TT as well.

3.) Nothing in the Techmanual states that standard SRMs have any sort of guidance system. You're merely inferring this from how Streaks operate.

4.) No argument here.

5.) Lolwut, the rules specifically state that ECM counters the BAP. Any unit equipped with BAP knows its being jammed though.

6.) The only way for this to work would to be to code in some sort of way that only allows them to fire if the target is in a perfect firing angle. Crying that it's not TT without offering an alternative on this one is just being limp-wristed autistic nerd. The real solution is to make them require a re-lock every time you want to fire them. Problem solved.

7) UAC/5s do jam, and they're still quite good. What the **** are you talking about?

8.) MGs would have to operate like point blank AC/2s or do 2 damage over ten seconds.

9.) Agreed, but high heat builds are pretty viable currently so really the only left over issue is that trial mechs with single heat sinks sucked. Future weaponry additions can be tuned to the current system.

10.) Done to keep things accessible and keep the learning curve down. Assuming MWO builds up a solid player base so that fracturing isn't an issue, I would like to see an alternate hardcore sim game mode with things like this included.

Quote

Actually not if you divide the amount of damage that the weapons do in that amount of time instead of just increasing RoF like they did. As for Solaris rules those were horribly broken to begin with.

Pinpoint aiming would still be a problem. I do think they should have just done this instead of trying to balance the weapons are TT damage values though.

Quote

And IMO the game (MWO) needs to follow the lore, not CBT rules - so far, it has.

Exactly. If dice rolling was something in MWO then sure, clone the TT rules but it isn't which means a whole host of other issues are going to come up. Things will have to be extrapolated and interpreted which will affect other systems and thus requiring alterations.

Edited by TOGSolid, 23 March 2013 - 11:57 AM.

[Maurdakar]

CloaknDagger, on 23 March 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

How have they followed canon more than any other game? Other MW games were closer to canon stats, and the autocannons were actually burst fire like in lore.

Other Mechwarrior games were broken as ****, did you play any online?

The single player was great, but if you are quoting the old games as even remotely balanced then you are wrong. Que old videos on youtube.

Also I Like the change they made to legging, what a great change from losing one leg and instantly dying.

Edited by Maurdakar, 23 March 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Maurdakar, on 23 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Other Mechwarrior games were broken as ****, did you play any online?

The single player was great, but if you are quoting the old games as even remotely balanced then you are wrong. Que old videos on youtube.

The problem with older games was poptarting. You're not supposed to be able to fire while JJing. So that means that jump jets are more JUMP and less JET. Think of the Mechanical Jump Boosters; that's closer to how JJs are.

Maurdakar, on 23 March 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Also I Like the change they made to legging, what a great change from losing one leg and instantly dying.

That's pretty much the only change that's good.

[AndyHill]

The instant pinpoint alpha ability has been there since MW2. I wish MWO would've taken a different path, but that's not the case here.

[CloaknDagger]

AndyHill, on 23 March 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

The instant pinpoint alpha ability has been there since MW2. I wish MWO would've taken a different path, but that's not the case here.

And likewise, as far as I'm aware, no MW games has implemented the heat scale effects correctly either.

Both of the major problems are caused by deviating from canon.

[Pht]

Hauser, on 20 March 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Solaris rule set. It's often cited as having a faster rate and being the base on which MWO was build.

Is there a developer confirmation of this or is this just community speculation?

Hauser, on 21 March 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

I'll concede those points happily. Just wanted to dislodge the idea that canon rules are a good basis to develop the gameplay of a first person mech-shooter.

The Mechwarrior video game genre is not a shooter genre.

"Shooter" requires you to be in first person direct control of the aiming of whatever weapons used.

Mw as a genre puts you in first person direct control of *a mech* ... and it's the 'mech that calculates how to hit the target the 'mech's pilot is indicating and tracking for it, and it is the 'Mech that actually has to physically align the weapons to the points it has calculated... furthermore, battlemechs in the BTUniverse/lore are not capable of hitting a single armor section of any 'mech sized target; they virtually always spread at least some of their weapons fire across their target (in a predictable and intutive manner). This spread based upon conditions and the 'Mech's ability to manipulate it's weapons is what makes combat in the BTU/lore fun, instead of "instant-death whoever shoots first wins" misery.

Tombstoner, on 22 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

I cant entirely agree with you. i think they have stuck too close to some TT systems and lore when it would be much better to make a clean break from TT cause we all know this isn't TT.

They indeed seem to have chosen the non-existant "middle way," picking and choosing what parts of the TT combat system to use, and apparently based upon wrong ideas as to what parts represent the pilot's skill and what parts represent ... anything other than pilot skill. They should have known better than doing this.

Quote

i have always seen TT weapons as whats left over from the succession wars. meaning things like the PPC-2,5,15,20 are lost tech. only the ppc-10 survived.

... I've never even heard of "classes" of ppcs the way you're listing them here, and I've read most of the books - novels and source/rule books.

Furthermore nothing of the like has ever existed in Heavy metal pro, solaris skunk werks, or megamek.

Do you have a source on these?

MasterErrant, on 22 March 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

I don't know what version of TT you're playing but all mechs have the exact same number of critical spaces.

Since the maxtech source book there's been an optional rule to base number of crits available upon overall 'Mech size.

Edited by Pht, 24 March 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Pht]

Maurdakar, on 22 March 2013 - 11:55 PM, said:

OP your belief that table top rules translate even semi well into a video game is utterly false.

Easy to claim.

Not so easy to back up with valid arguments from true premises.

Quote

Firstly every decision made to balance the weapons should be done too further diversify the viable weapon selection. Introducing things that are plain better is just pointless.

Why? ... or should we simply agree ipsi dixit - only and simply because you said it?

Furthermore, you seem to be implying that the whack-a-mole version of game balance is better than the other options - that everything should be smacked down to level, and nothing should ever enjoy any *clear* advantage... which is a recipie for constant tweaking, dofus style.

Quote

Secondly game mechanics should make this game more unique than other shooters.

MW is not a shooter video game.

MW is a Armored combat imitation video game, in particular, imitating what it would be like to pilot a fictional mech from the fictional BTUniverse in combat in that unvierse.

The two are not the same.

Quote

Thirdly you seem to be implying the TT is at all balanced, isn't run on completely different mechanics and doesn't have a completely different meta game which tries to balance it out.

We don't even know what you mean by balanced, but If I had to guess, I'd bet you mean the whack-a-mole version of balance - to which I would say... so?

"Completely different mechanics" - you seem to be implying that the TTR combat rules representing everything other than mech pilot skill couldn't somehow be run by our computers in real time.

Quote

Fourthly you seem to think the original material is somehow sacred. It was all made up. I suggest we make up new stuff again now if it's a good idea which is fun.

Sacred no, liked, yes. What a novel idea ... some people like certain games the way they are... and there is nothing wrong with this.

"Make up new stuff" - ok, you simply just don't like Mechwarrior nor the lore; which is fine.

What isn't fine is that you think it's ok to try and make a total hash of an already existing game that other people enjoy, instead of trying to get a wholly new one built that you'd enjoy.

blinkin, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

table top is itself broken in many respects. my brother attempted to balance some of the issues with the game, and a friend of ours looked at the notebook my brother had been using. he described it as "the rantings of a mad man".

First - every game system breaks at some point.

Second - do you have that notebook? How about, instead of posting a sweeping generalization and expecting us to just take your word, you ... say ... demonstrate how what you're saying is true?

[Pht]

TOGSolid, on 23 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

For someone crying about the game not being canon, you don't seem to know much about the game or the canon.

Does this mean when someone asks you a specific question about what's wrong with the TT you'll actually post the rule and explain whats wrong with it?

Quote

1.) The only way to keep TT armor values would be to make all the weapons hit random locations and occasionally miss for no reason every time you pulled the trigger. No thanks.

The misses aren't spread for "no reason at all." The various to-hit modifers represent how differing conditions affect your 'mech's ability to bring it's weapons to bear, and the hit-location tables represent the 'Mechs ultimate ability to bring it's weapons to bear.

Quote

6.) The only way for this to work would to be to code in some sort of way that only allows them to fire if the target is in a perfect firing angle. Crying that it's not TT without offering an alternative on this one is just being limp-wristed autistic nerd. The real solution is to make them require a re-lock every time you want to fire them. Problem solved.

Every salvo should have to acquire lock... yes. It behaves that way in the TT, however in the lore, as long as you have a lock, you keep that lock... it's just a matter if the next salvo can get out quickly enough to utilize that lock before it's lost.

Quote

10.) Done to keep things accessible and keep the learning curve down.

It's not that hard of a learning curve to play a few games and realize that overheating is BAD, don't overheat.

Quote

Exactly. If dice rolling was something in MWO then sure, clone the TT rules but it isn't which means a whole host of other issues are going to come up.

Can you give us a single specific example of this "whole host" of other issues?

Edited by Pht, 24 March 2013 - 12:12 PM.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 24 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

How about, instead of posting a sweeping generalization and expecting us to just take your word, you ... say ... demonstrate how what you're saying is true?

ok now read this again and take a moment to contemplate how moronic this criticism is vv

blinkin, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

the ignorant extremists on both ends make this debate awesome.

HIM: ALL THINGS MUST BE TABLE TOP RULES EVERYTHING ELSE IS BROKEN!!!11!!!!111!!1

YOU: ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH TABLE TOP RUINS THE GAME!!!!!111!!!!!!11!!!!1!!

this game is based on the original table top rules. all mechwarrior games have drawn from table top, some more than others.

BUT

table top is itself broken in many respects. my brother attempted to balance some of the issues with the game, and a friend of ours looked at the notebook my brother had been using. he described it as "the rantings of a mad man".



so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

you have already admitted that there are parts of table top that are broken.

i have stated very explicitly that we should take the parts that work and abandon those that don't.

the only sweeping generalization i made was saying that nothing is perfect. <-i am pretty sure this is accepted by most people.


so what are you accusing me of? being too hard line with my middle of the road views? can you even be a middle of the road extremist?


if you intend to rebuke me at least make an attempt to be smart about it.

Edited by blinkin, 24 March 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

CloaknDagger, on 08 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

5. Treating BAP as... a targeting system?

Effect: BAP is supposed to act as a better sensor system. That it does do. But it is also supposed to be a Counter-ECM. Any ECM field it's near is nullified. In here, it... isn't. That's why nobody uses BAP.

Hey look, a lie. ECM nullifies BAP, and the BAP user is aware (unlike normal mechs, who aren't aware of the jamming).

[Karl Streiger]

I have made some calculations...far from finished.
But you can keep the game at it is all you have to do is to adjust the armor values based on the to hit probability.

Because there is hardly a probability...you need to get a "feeling" how good players actually are.
Some target locations of Mechs are more easy to hit other are more harder. But the doubled armor value only says...the average player is able to hit the CT of a Atlas 3 out of 10 times. And I believe it is more likely to hit it 6 out of 10 times.
So to get the same you have to increase the base armor of a Atlas by 4.
On the other hand i believe the Atlas head armor would have been fine with a increase of 50%...so AC 20 is the only weapon able to behead a Atlas. While catapults head armor has to be increased.

Light Mechs on the other hand is another example of balancing problems: do they have to much armor? Well the question is more: Should a single AC 20 shell be able to put a Jenner to the ground...the answer is yes...but when the AC 20 is able to do this...you can kill a Jenner quiete easy with SSRM or medium laser zig zagging.
So you have to adress the weapons rather than the armor of the light mechs.
Good idea could be instead of dealing liniear damage the laser damage should be based on time on a hit location....quiete more difficult to calculate...but i think its the price you have to pay:
For example a large laser hitting a target in a single location at short range should deal 10dmg
But when hitting the two locations the sum of both damages should be 8
when hitting three locations the sum should be 6...


Here is a question for the probabillity of hit locations in MWO:
http://mwomercs.com/...-shots-i-hit-a/

[Pinselborste]

pgi should have either dropped the TT stats completely to balance it, or used the TT stats for everything that works with them in an real time game. mixing those things is a bad idea.

its like taking things from an RTS game and an FPS game to create a racing game.

[blinkin]

Pinselborste, on 25 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

pgi should have either dropped the TT stats completely to balance it, or used the TT stats for everything that works with them in an real time game. mixing those things is a bad idea.

its like taking things from an RTS game and an FPS game to create a racing game.

most basic concepts within game design are highly transferable.

let's take a look at your example.

• most racing games have parts within the vehicles that can be swapped out for others with different stats (mech lab). in fact there is an old game called "interstate '76" that the mechlab very strongly reminds me of and with some rules sets in battle tech*.
  
• the throttle is found in most racing games and is definitely found in any respectable flight simulator.
  
• torso twist is straight out of tank simulators like world of tanks and is also included in battle tech*.
  
• line of sight is present in almost any game working in a 3D environment including RTS as old as "total annihilation", and most any table top style game including battle tech*.
  
• jump jets are found in all sorts of crazy places. from old james bond games to all sorts of old sidescroller nintendo games and a great many table top style games like battletech* or warhammer 40k.
  
• critical injuries (injuries that limit your in game abilities in some way besides just killing you). most any survival game. anything that wants to call itself a simulator of some kind. it is even found within the cars of newer grand theft auto games and tabletop*.
  
• ammo limitations get included with almost any game that has guns from as far back as "duck hunt" and table top*.
  
• weight limits on builds were included in chrome hounds and table top*.
  
• first person aiming and shooting got it's start with "duck hunt".
  
• engine heat is found within the flight simulator "IL-2" and table top*.
  
• target locking and missile guidance are found in "sonic adventure battle 2".
  
• sectored damage is included with any game that has head shots, rear armor hits, any respectable simulator, or battle tech*.

game mechanics themselves are independent of the arbitrary labels that we use to slap games into a specific genre. MWO does not fit clearly within any genre. when was the last time you used a throttle to control the character in a FPS? when was the last time an FPS character overheated and shut down from firing too much? are there any FPS where you can turn your torso and aim at something off of your front view without turning your legs? how many FPS have torso based weapons that aim independently of your arm weapons?


if we never transfered mechanics across genres then aiming would only be allowed in hunting games, because it started in "duck hunt". it is absurd to place limitations on what ideas we are allowed to use based on such arbitrary lines as where they originally came from.

if you remove anything that comes from table top battle tech just because it comes from table top you would be removing 90% of the mechanics in game. i added stars to mark all of the stuff that would need to be removed.

your post is the purest essence of thinking inside the box. most have even given their box a name "FPS".

Edited by blinkin, 25 March 2013 - 12:56 PM.