468 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

MustrumRidcully, on 29 March 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

I know Battletech is old and so is some of its fanbase, but no need to scream, we can read the posts just fine.

if this was directed at me:
my screaming was directed mostly at one specific person who proved several times over that he either had issues with eye sight or reading comprehension.

i get angry when people demand that i prove simple truisms are true, and/or try to argue against first order logic.

most of my emotionally charged font use was directed at one specific moron.

generally i limit specialized fonts or capslock use to emphasizing very important key points in my arguments.

[Tombstoner]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

If slapping a modifier on a pilot is so easy, what is my modifier vs. yours?

I could provide this information if i had access to all the data. if its being tracked by PGI for all players.
i think it comes down to your hit to miss ratios position relative to the entire player base
regardless of conditions or mech used people with high gunnery skill hit more often than people with bad gunner skill.... who knew.

arbitrary values such as -1, +4 can be over laid to the standard distribution of the hit to miss ratio of the player base.
thus you can find out what your modifier is. BTW this can be done for all weapons. so yea it can be broken down to +2 with ppc's -4 with med pulse lasers.

[Tombstoner]

MustrumRidcully, on 29 March 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

I know Battletech is old and so is some of its fanbase, but no need to scream, we can read the posts just fine.

---


I am not familiar enough with the rules, but I believe the extra difficulty to hit makes the big difference. Mouse Aiming at most hit location isn't that hard. And the TT armour values were not designed for people to reliable hit people and determined locations. You can probably see that break down with targeting computers + pulse lasers + Clan pilots.

But that's not necessarily a problem. Adjust the armour ratios so that it becomes often more economical to leg or disarm mechs rather than try to core or behead them.

The above statement is why game balance... what little that existed in TT was fundamentally altered when TT was ported into MWO. The game balance response was double armor. MWO game balance is taken directly from TT and is not designed for pin point mouse aiming even with the added difficulty of trying to hit something in a FPS shooter.

Granted the current incarnation does become the default / base line and could be considered fine by people not acquainted with BT in any previous form. but as an avid computer gamer of some 30+ years experiance. i see the current game incarnation as seriously missing its design intent. you shouldn't just port some parts of a TT rule set and disregard the others.

All weapon stats and armor values need to be completely reworked for the new environment. not have a couple values tweaked.

Targeting computer cant be added since it modifies the chance to hit.
Pulse lasers are easier to hit with again no game mechanic to modify.
Clan skill level is a +1 to gunnery again no game mechanic to modify.

A long time ago i proposed mech/location specif modifiers for armor. that way individual locations on specific mech can be
made harder or softer to damage relative to other mechs. This is a bad idea in retrospect because it overly complicates game balance. as it is players are removing armor from some locations. i find it very viable to leg people. in fact that's one of the first location i try to hit. some people try to get away with 40 points on there legs.

PGI has made significant design choices that for good or bad are not going to be changed.

pin point targeting
lack of heat modifiers. critical to BT experience. shut down or boom are not enough.
lack of internal space based on mech model volume - atlas can only fit one small laser vs one PPC in its arm. WTF
hard point system needs over haul - crit space can be changed to smaller version of the same weapon type. 1 ppc=3 mediums

This is the sort of stuff this thread is trying to address.
constructive feedback from people with LOTs of real world / gaming experience.
its not OMG its not exaclty like TT it sucks or broken. i know it seems like that to some, but its not.

[CloaknDagger]

Tombstoner, on 29 March 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Targeting computer cant be added since it modifies the chance to hit.
Pulse lasers are easier to hit with again no game mechanic to modify.
Clan skill level is a +1 to gunnery again no game mechanic to modify.

Of all the things, pulse lasers having a to-hit bonus IS ingame already. They have a shorter discharge time than regular lasers.

Is it equivalent to -2? I don't know. Only PGI has the numbers.

Now you might be thinking "But they still suck! It must be wrong!"

Well, pulse lasers suck in TT too. The only good ones are the clan ones, and THOSE have more range than the regular IS lasers do.

[Tombstoner]

CloaknDagger, on 29 March 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Of all the things, pulse lasers having a to-hit bonus IS ingame already. They have a shorter discharge time than regular lasers.

Is it equivalent to -2? I don't know. Only PGI has the numbers.

Now you might be thinking "But they still suck! It must be wrong!"

Well, pulse lasers suck in TT too. The only good ones are the clan ones, and THOSE have more range than the regular IS lasers do.

Clearly all aspects of TT rules can't be implemented on a 1:1 basis and i think this is the heart of the thread.

whats different or missing between TT and the currant build. how its affecting game play/ balance.
why its important, with ways to implement alternatives reasonably.

The to hit bonus for pulse lasers could be implemented closer to TT if a COF was used (just like every modern FPS) and a new beam was generated for each pulse of damage. using the same size cone for med lasers and pulse lasers the pulse version would have its damage spread all over the COF. increasing its chance to hit a long range target. As it is the pulse laser just shortens the time you need to hold on target to get max damage and its delivers more damage if its a slashing hit.
conversely its shortened pulse mean you miss with more damage than you would with non pulse lasers.

I am actually happy with the way lasers are done in MWO it treats them as direct damage over time weapons(DOT). I like that. it treats ppc's as direct damage(DD). but the game also treats ac's as DD. i would rather have them as DOT and Gause be the ballistic version of DD. then back fill in the weapon, creating non cannon weapons like gause-2,5, 10, 20. i want an ac-15. it fits right in the game specs. its a gaping hole not filled by the gause.

As for TT, pulse lasers where superb for light mechs because it countered the movement penalties for running. This aspect of TT cant be implemented. does it have to be, no but it does leave out something that could be used for balance instead of changing the damage window and adding/removing heat.

The game is missing opportunities and fundamental parts for creating variety and balance within its primary game mechanics.

Mech price is also something taken from the game but it clearly has noting to do with power levels. MC price for a commando is absurd. i expect the atlas hero to be $27. its going to be a joke with the current game mechanics.

[MasterErrant]

CloaknDagger, on 29 March 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Of all the things, pulse lasers having a to-hit bonus IS ingame already. They have a shorter discharge time than regular lasers.

Is it equivalent to -2? I don't know. Only PGI has the numbers.

Now you might be thinking "But they still suck! It must be wrong!"

actually if you actually look at laser pefformance, all standard lsaers are just pulse lasers with weaker effects. and a bit more range. Lasers and PPC should be hard beams .1 sec or so. and their speed of flight should be instantaneous. they travel at the speed of light.

PGI has abandoned a fairly balanced system in favour of whoat? Boats rule (Nothing wrong with BOats mind you there are lots of them in TT and they belong.) currently PGIs decisions on mechs, varients and hardpoints leave little option but boating. I play balanced mechs just like I would In TT because I like too but I also accept that I'll never be atop scorer.

Well, pulse lasers suck in TT too. The only good ones are the clan ones, and THOSE have more range than the regular IS lasers do.

[PaintedWolf]

Name one MW game that the OP says follows canon and I will show you some BS. MW2- Clans take Terra. Latest before MWO- Mechs have Forcefields.

So far this game is the closest to canon by far. This person has either never played a MW game before or is explicitly lying about it, or, maybe, just unable to see the cracks in between the foundations of the other games where it is way more obvious.

When I first played MW2 I went to Trial Grounds with a Dire Wolf and nothing but Streak SRMs. I killed the enemy Mech in 1 Salvo. Next I went with nothing but LRMs- again- BEYOND OVERKILL with 1 Salvo.

[blinkin]

PaintedWolf, on 29 March 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Latest before MWO- Mechs have Forcefields.

no one counts the mech assault sacrilage. most people go out of their way to avoid acknowledging that it even exists. microsoft will get their own special private level of hell for that offense.

that aside i think you have a point with the rest. when was the last time a PC mech game included anything on the heat scale besides shutting down?

i think this is the first to include equipment criticals.

[Serious Table]

PaintedWolf, on 29 March 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Name one MW game that the OP says follows canon and I will show you some BS.

I can't speak for OP, but I dunno; I thought MW2: Mercs did a pretty good job.

[blinkin]

Serious Table, on 29 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

I can't speak for OP, but I dunno; I thought MW2: Mercs did a pretty good job.

i don't think the point was whether they are good or bad. do any of them perma jam UAC weapons randomly? how many allow for random critical hits BEFORE armor is destroyed? do any of the other games have any sort of heat penalty beyond shutdowns? how many games use up a full ton of AMS ammo to block 3 or 4 missile volleys?

the previous PC games have been good, but from what i have seen they have fudged or outright ignored the table top rules more than a little themselves.

[CloaknDagger]

blinkin, on 30 March 2013 - 12:08 AM, said:

i don't think the point was whether they are good or bad. do any of them perma jam UAC weapons randomly? how many allow for random critical hits BEFORE armor is destroyed? do any of the other games have any sort of heat penalty beyond shutdowns? how many games use up a full ton of AMS ammo to block 3 or 4 missile volleys?

the previous PC games have been good, but from what i have seen they have fudged or outright ignored the table top rules more than a little themselves.

Indeed. And ignoring canon is ALSO why they were terrible.

Poptarting - They let mechs shoot while JJing. That's not canon.

Alpha-Striking - No heat penalties. That's not canon.

Ect...

[Gamgee]

I denied the canonists since beta, no longer.

GAME. IS. ******. UP

I'm leaving until they get their own balance incorporated, or a well tested canon balance. Peace out.

[Xerxys]

I'm quite certain that I don't know everything about BT:TT and I've never claimed that all TT rules will come over. My example of how to run this game coming from TT rules on a 1:1 ratio was strictly speaking of the round time : weapon damage : heat or round time : armor : heat dissipation. The rest of it very well may not work, I truly don't know. Once weapon balance is achieved then you can start altering things to account for more accurate gunnery skills between pilots and all the other rules. However, the increasing difficulties of the piloting a mech due to high heat cannot truly be addressed until that whole system has meshed and created a good balance.

I know it would **** me off to no end if I was aiming from ~800 meters out with my PPC and miss a perfectly aimed shot, but **** happens and I know it would probably save my bacon more often than not and I could accept it. The system would be balanced. I think that so long as the weapon balance and heat issues are worked out the rest of the game would function close enough to TT that I truly wouldn't mind. Perhaps even working from a 1:1 ratio with weapons some things will have to be tweaked slightly. I never claimed it would be perfect, but it would at least give a balance point to start from.

It wasn't until cool shots came out that I finally realized why the heat system is thoroughly dicked up. We would never need to buy the cool shots otherwise and we certainly would never pay real money for them if the heat system worked as it should. Unfortunately the pay to win aspect has come into the game, and it's gonna keep me from playing any more. Their are other games out there that are a bit more fun, certainly less frustrating, and while buying certain things would certainly help to win, it's not the "I win" button that a money bought cool shot is going to be. I had high hopes for this game and that pretty much dashed them. I fear this is only the first of the pay to win options that are going to be brought in.

Edited by Xerxys, 31 March 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Cool shots are a tricky issue. PGI needs multiple streams of income. Having cool shots available for in game cash removes the pay to win aspect. However the current heat mechanism and trend towards large alpha strikes does promote/ almost necessitates the use of cool shots. Create a need and then sell the fix as a consumable. so the game is working as intended. it's just not a good business model in my opinion.

OMG i just realized why ECM was released so powerful.... its to make consumables worth taking. things like scout drones and other stuff.

PGI's business model - Create a artificial need and then sell the fix as a consumable.

[Shumabot]

This thread is glorious for the sheer lack of logic in these posts. I especially love "three times the rate of fire should also be accompanied by three times the heat", as if that means anything.

Tombstoner, on 01 April 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Cool shots are a tricky issue. PGI needs multiple streams of income. Having cool shots available for in game cash removes the pay to win aspect. However the current heat mechanism and trend towards large alpha strikes does promote/ almost necessitates the use of cool shots. Create a need and then sell the fix as a consumable. so the game is working as intended. it's just not a good business model in my opinion.

OMG i just realized why ECM was released so powerful.... its to make consumables worth taking. things like scout drones and other stuff.

PGI's business model - Create a artificial need and then sell the fix as a consumable.

That doesn't actually remove the pay to win aspect. When the cost of coolant offsets 50% of your winnings it's an onerous cost that directly contributes to an aspect of wealthier players having more power. It it a solid paywall? No. But like it or not, wealthier players will have coolant shot more due to it's repetitious cost. Prem time is about the only way to consistently buy consumables without having it seriously impact your ability to afford mechs or other forms of equipment. Soft systems of p2w aren't meaningless and this forums tune will change on that the moment you can start to see peoples wealth raining from the sky in air strikes.

[Pht]

You should really fix your caps button. It seems to be stuck.

blinkin, on 28 March 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

TABLETOP IS NOT PERFECT.

... and I never posted in any way that the TT is perfect.


----------

Quote

NON-PERFECTION INHERENTLY IMPLIES THERE ARE PARTS THAT ARE BROKEN.

We know that you've been saying that parts of it are broken.

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 you say (and repeat) that some parts of the TT are broken...

blinkin, on 24 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

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

And repeat yourself again...

blinkin, on 24 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

the only sweeping generalization i made was saying that nothing is perfect.

Than you post that you're just saying that it's not perfect...

Quote

I NEVER SAID THE WHOLE OF EVERYTHING TABLETOP IS BORKED.

Pht, on 28 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Even IF you had meant the same thing by "broken at some point" as I did above well ... yes ... and? Again, every gaming system suffers the exact same limitation.)

If you didn't mean the same thing...

And I did not post that you HAD because I couldn't be sure from the content of your post(s). So I covered both bases - if you meant it was all broken, or if you meant the same thing that I had.


----------

Quote

BATTLETECH HAS MANY USEFUL APSECTS THAT CAN AND SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM TO ENHANCE THIS GAME BUT SLAVISH FANATICAL ADHERENCE TO ANY SINGULAR SYSTEM IS STUPID.

... and I have not been "slavishly fanatical" in deciding what parts of the TT should be adhered to.


----------

Quote

YOU ARE DEMANDING THAT I SHOW PROOF OF THE NON-PERFECTION OF TABLETOP.

No, I have not.

You have made the mistake of adding a meaning to my posts that they don't require.

Asking someone

*what* parts of the TT are "broken" and "won't work"

is not

"asking someone to prove the imperfection of the TT," ...

especially when that someone has repeatedly posted that some parts of the TT are broken, that his brother wrote up a book of such "broken parts," and has ALSO written that we should use some parts of the TT to enhance the MW video game.


----------

Quote

DO ALL MECHS IN TABLETOP GET PLAYED IN ROUGHLY EQUAL NUMBERS? NO THEY DON'T BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEM THAT ARE OUTRIGHT JOKES IN THE COMMUNITY.

----

TWO WORDS: CLAN TECH.

----

AND HEY GUESS WHAT. I AM PRETTY SURE PILOT SKILL ROLES DON'T FIT INTO THE MWO SYSTEM.

----

LAST I CHECKED WE DIDN'T ROLL FOR RANDOM DAMAGE LOCATIONS WHEN WE ARE WITHIN 100m.

----

i throw insults because you are arguing against the very definition of non-perfect.

Are you aware that the maintainers of the Lore built many "bad" mechs on purpose?

----

"Game balance" can mean more than the concept of "whack-a-mole balance." It can also mean "real diversity in combat balance where some things can actually be BETTER & building the game where any tactic that's not outright stupid (e.g. taking a small laser boat onto a flat, open, super-hot desert map) is viable in gameplay."

Or: Clan Tech is supposed to be better.

----

... and I have repeatedly said that the PSR's don't belong in the MW video game genre.

----


Find a small arms instructor who's well respected by his peers in your area and ask him if it's easier to hit a mobile target at close range than it is at medium or long range (medium and long range being relative terms defined by the rated combat performance of any weapon).

Seriously; do. I don't think you'd take my word on it.

----

No. I'm not. You've simply made a false conclusion from my posts that doesn't follow from their content. I would think that after repeatedly posting that I don't think or post that the TT is perfect that you might have figured this out. Or at least have stopped and asked me why I was posting that it isn't perfect when you *percieved* that i was also posting that it is... Kind of like how I covered both bases when I didn't know what you meant by "broken."

Edited by Pht, 01 April 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[Pht]

Tombstoner, on 29 March 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

arbitrary values such as -1, +4 can be over laid to the standard distribution of the hit to miss ratio of the player base.

Adding ANY skill modifier *BETWEEN* the pilot and the battlemech where We, at our computers, can control "our mechs" in exactly the same way and with the same capabilities as the pilots in the fictional lore ...

IS BAD.

If we can control it from our computers in the same way that the Mech's pilot can, we should be allowed to control it.

This is implied by the very name of the series - this is a game series about "what would it be like to pilot a BTU battlemech."

The *only* to-hit modifiers that should be used are those that relate to how well a 'Mech can handle it's weapons in relation to the various conditions it's encountering when the pilot decides to make a shot; and how those weapons themselves perform.

Tombstoner, on 29 March 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

The above statement is why game balance... what little that existed in TT was fundamentally altered when TT was ported into MWO.

He's gotten it wrong. The Pilot Skill Rolls (PSR's) ... DO NOT BELONG in an MW video game.

All of the to-hit modifiers I have listed here: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/ are for the Mech and it's weapons.

I suppose this is an easy mistake to make, if one isn't very familiar with the TT combat system.

Quote

This is the sort of stuff this thread is trying to address.
constructive feedback from people with LOTs of real world / gaming experience.
its not OMG its not exaclty like TT it sucks or broken. i know it seems like that to some, but its not.

... and what about, "OMG, it's not like the stuff in the TT that rocks and would convert over easily and would result in awesome gameplay?"

... and "If you make a claim, you ought to be willing to back it up... and define the ambiguous words you use?"

CloaknDagger, on 30 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Poptarting - They let mechs shoot while JJing. That's not canon.

Actually, you can shoot while jumping in the canon.

You take a +3 for doing so.

Edited by Pht, 01 April 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[Pht]

Xerxys, on 31 March 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

I know it would **** me off to no end if I was aiming from ~800 meters out with my PPC and miss a perfectly aimed shot,...

I genuinely want to know ... do you know what a "perfectly lined up shot" IS in the lore/TT?

Do you realize that it doesn't just consist of keeping the reticule exactly over the spot you want to hit... and that it is the 'Mech that actually calculates the lead, in real time?

Do you know that the being able to make the "perfect shot" requires you to know how your 'Mech is going to react to the conditions that are occuring when you want to make the shot... i.e. how well your 'Mech can calculate the lead and than actually physically align it's weapons to hit that point?

I believe a lot of people don't realize that these things are what "gunnery skill" in a 'Mech consists of, and beause of this, they bring expectations to the MW genre that aren't proper for the genre.

These factors are what I've been advocating be in the game.

Edited by Pht, 01 April 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[Syllogy]

Some people can't accept that their idea is an Epic Fail until it is demonstrated to them:

[Pht]

Syllogy, on 01 April 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Some people can't accept that their idea is an Epic Fail until it is demonstrated to them:

Epic fail:

Thinking that posting a snarky picture that has no content in it actually addressing the issue at hand is a proof of failure.