468 replies to this topic

[AndyHill]

Boating is fine on the tabletop, because even if you are carrying a very homogenous payload, you can't fire pinpoint alphas one after the other. The weapons will hit different locations anyway.

Also when talking about TT imbalances, I'm not an expert as I don't have that much experience in minmaxing 'mechs for it, but to my understanding some of the weapons are more balanced than others and of course there are different levels of tech (that aren't even really meant to be balanced against each other). But is the imbalance really so drastic that you kept thinking "yeah we need to triple the heat production and throw in drastic changes to other values as well to balance it?

The thing is, many of the fundamental values such as weight and space requirements are exactly the same in both, damage values are mostly pretty close, ranges in the general ballpark (relatively), but for some reason heat is completely off the chart. Did this kind of rebalancing really need to be done to make the stock TT values work better? I don't really think so, at laest I have seen no evidence pointing that way.

What really needed to be done was the translation from TT functionality to real-time simulation. That's the main thing and to me it seems like it's also the missing thing. A somewhat balanced and pretty entertaining tabletop game doesn't become a balanced and great simulation game by fudging numbers, the translation requires a thorough rethinking of how the relevant gameplay elements can be transferred from one system to the other. And weapon balance in TT BT for example is a fairly good system that could be translated to a real-time environment with a gameplay design that fits the purpose and then adjusted to cater for the inevitable differences caused by some weapons being hitscan instead of having shells with finite exit velocities etc.

The way I see it, MWO just took the (IMHO somewhat flawed) gameplay from previous MW titles and started really messing with numbers that weren't that far off the mark to begin with.

[HarmAssassin]

Instead of tweaking one weapon at a time, they should have done all at once using a formula to convert from TT to online play. The problems they are encountering (and all the complaints) are because they are throwing things farther and farther out of balance.

All they really needed to do to move from TT to online is:
Double armor (done)
Alter weapon firing rates to balance fun with livability
Institute a heat scale with real penalties for overheating

Once those three are done, you tweak things A LITTLE until balance is achieved. But instead they drop the nerf hammer on weapons making them useless, then buffing them, then nerfing them, rinse and repeat.

In TT you could pinpoint fire, if you had the right targeting system equipped (module) - so saying that mouse-aiming required everything to be thrown out of balance is a false conclusion..

Yes, a few things needed to be changed to move from TT to online play, but not as much as they've done. The more they tinker and move away from canon, the more broken this game gets.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 18 April 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

^^yup Pht you have always been the victim, you were perfectly inoccent, this is in no way intended to provoke anyone.

So, pointing out that someone's made general and sweeping claims and given us nothing but their word for it and is expecting us to take it only on the basis of their word for it ... and than asking them to back up their claims ... isn't asking them to back their claims up, but rather it is somehow flaming/insulting/trolling?

Karl, do you realize that you're pretty much seeking to build the wheel again, when the wheel has already been built? Especially when you use the advanced combat stuff...

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Probably the biggest difference is that in the BT lore/novels/etc is that even with a single weapon you don't get to "pick your part" vs a mobile mech sized target; and this is something that is a rule, throughout the lore everywhere.

It is the difference between BT lore and (what should be) MW video gaming and the other mech/a video games - you have to think for your mech, because your 'mech acutually has to be accounted for. This is what is unique about the BT end of the mech/a genre.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 20 April 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

So, pointing out that someone's made general and sweeping claims and given us nothing but their word for it and is expecting us to take it only on the basis of their word for it ... and than asking them to back up their claims ... isn't asking them to back their claims up, but rather it is somehow flaming/insulting/trolling?

yes the sweeping generalization that nothing is perfect. and i am sorry that i didn't back up my claim that battletech was made by mere mortals and is subject to mistakes made by people, i foolishly thought that was a standard assumption that could be made. how shameful.

you weren't flaming/insulting/trolling but it was clearly confrontational. you picked a fight and you got a fight.

and now because i am just downright curious. show me exactly where i made a sweeping generalization. if you are going to try to ram words back down my throat, then i would really like to know exactly what your justification is.

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.

and just for reference i am using the ENGLISH definition of the word "generalization" because i know how much you love to make up your own definitions for common words:
http://www.merriam-w.../generalization

1 : the act or process of generalizing

2 : a general statement, law, principle, or proposition

3 : the act or process whereby a learned response is made to a stimulus similar to but not identical with the conditioned stimulus

and because that isn't exactly straight forward here is the word "generalize" for more reference:
http://www.merriam-w...nary/generalize


1: to give a general form to

2
a : to derive or induce (a general conception or principle) from particulars
b : to draw a general conclusion from

3: to give general applicability to <generalize a law>; also : to make indefinite
intransitive verb

1: to form generalizations; also : to make vague or indefinite statements
2: to spread or extend throughout the body

i have looked over this several times and i see no attempts to apply any definitions to all of anything or anyone.

and here is the link to the original quote, as you will notice it has never been edited. the last time an article was edited is listed in bold letters below the text (this post does not have that because i have never changed it.) also the quote should be completely identical to the post i have linked.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2113394


@Pht: have fun. i look forward to a full response that justifies your claims against me.

Edited by blinkin, 21 April 2013 - 12:00 AM.

[Loler skates]

Royalewithcheese, on 09 March 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Sure, but they do twice to four times the damage of a gauss rifle and aren't made of glass and explosions. They're very effective on builds that have the space for them. Of the top builds right now, there are some that use gauss and some that use UAC/5.



Depending on the build, that may or may not matter. An AC/20 is actually a pretty effective midrange weapon - it does better damage than a gauss rifle out to ~400m at which point the gauss rifle starts to pull ahead. Some of the top builds run either, depending on the role.



If your UAC/5 jams, you were either taking a calculated risk or doing it wrong. Also, fun fact: a pair of UAC/5s has roughly the same DPS of that entire loadout with much less heat if you don't double-tap them. There's a reason they're a staple on Marmosets and DDCs

UAc/5 jam even on first shot with no double tap dude,

[MustrumRidcully]

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

And I don't.

Nor does anyone who I know likes battletech and/or it's lore.

It's obvious that you really don't like battletech or it's lore; that's fine.

It might be obvious, but it would still be wrong.

Quote

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 of virtually zero-convergence weapons fire.

I am a game mechanics guy. I want good game mechanics. I like deep gameplay, compelling mechanics, and a fundamental theory in games I subscribe to is that a game is a set of interesting choices.

If there is something I dislike about Battletech is that there are too many strong effects that are too random. I find them unfun. You might not, that's okay, I am not saying that my way is the only right way. But I believe that Battletech could be more fun for me, for other players, and maybe even with you, if someone were to take a close look and revamp the system to bring more meaningful choices and better balance.

Quote

I somehow also suspect you have in mind something completely different than what those of us have in mind who want the 'mechs to matter and behave like BTUniverse mechs do, in relation to gameplay and combat.

I don't see all behavior of BT mechs as sacred cows. Random hit locations for examples break my immersion. You can never convince me that a combat machine 1,000 years in the future is not able to hit a specific 2m wide target at 500m.

You can convince me easily however that it's not trivial to make all weapons converge on one point (particularly not if they are hard-mounted inside the torso). In fact, you have a hard time convincing me that they could, and I'd ask your 3D modeler to show me the weapon mounts that allow this freedom of movement.

You will also have a hard time convincing me that it's a decent interpretation of the battletech universe if a mech like the Awesome turns from a mech that can shoot 3 PPCs indefinitely in 2-3 fire pattern at their maximum possible damage output into a mech that overheats in 7 seconds. Or that a heat neutral Jagermech is actually an oven that overheats in 6 seconds.

[Karl Streiger]

Pht, on 20 April 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Karl, do you realize that you're pretty much seeking to build the wheel again, when the wheel has already been built? Especially when you use the advanced combat stuff...

Oh...thats not the first time I heard that.... reminds me that I have once developed a cryptosystem for using a Dongle. The Dongle wasn't really safe, because every sniffer programm was able to "see" the packages... so i tried hard to find a system that could nullifie every benefit you can earn from sniffing the exchange data packages.
In the end it was somwhat of a Hybrid Cryptosystem....(i didn't even known it before).. and the hardware of the Dongle was not able to handle that.
So yes i have some experience in building the wheel again. However attacking windmills is never senseless...they will give in somedays.

MustrumRidcully, on 21 April 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

I am a game mechanics guy. I want good game mechanics. I like deep gameplay, compelling mechanics, and a fundamental theory in games I subscribe to is that a game is a set of interesting choices.

If there is something I dislike about Battletech is that there are too many strong effects that are too random. I find them unfun. You might not, that's okay, I am not saying that my way is the only right way. But I believe that Battletech could be more fun for me, for other players, and maybe even with you, if someone were to take a close look and revamp the system to bring more meaningful choices and better balance.

Well those strong effects are only a concern at the first look. Behind them BattleTech is plain simple.
Take for example the shooting:
I figured out that there are 3 ways to kill a Mech faster - all of that is Math.
I can explain it with the Deimos (the one i played in MW4 Mektek - or Hardcore?)

This one was made by DHG~Gecko, I think it is pretty good except the rear firing laser <_< on one of the varients

BattleMech Technical Readout
Type/Model: Deimos (Base)--------------------------------------------------------
6 Ultra AC/2s
2 LRM 15 2
2 ER Medium Laser
-----------------------------
Configuration: Deimos A
--------------------------------------------------------
2 Gauss Rifle
2 ER PPC
1 Medium Pulse Laser
1 Anti-Missile System HD
-----------------------------
Configuration: Deimos B
--------------------------------------------------------
2 ER Large Laser
2 Large Pulse Laser
2 LB 5-X AC

1 ER Large Laser RT&#174; 
Light Active Probe

The first one live for the fire solution the more hits the better...plain simple land 100 hits of any size and you will have 3 head shots. Every headshot is weakening a pilot even if it doensn't penetrate armor.

Second fire solution big guns with the option of a single killing blow. Any shot of the weapon can kill the pilot. But for most its still devasting 60 point damage that can remove virtually any armor at any target with almost 1 hit. Only the best armored targets can be hit by this thing more than two times in the same spot.
The good range brackets make them a thread for every target - even the light ones at short range

Third is a mixture of both...large good hitting weapons. And a cluster weapon. Make a hole and use the cluster rounds to finish the target off. They are still those thiny LB 5 X but on the other hand you have excellent range = excellent precision.

THE Canon Deimos form TRO 3085 have changed the loadout...its not that min maxed beast anymore...but the Alt.A is still capable of the third firepattern even better with its Dual ER-PPCs and Dual LB10X.

Hope i showed clear the fundamental math of BatteTech shooting. Its random...but you can use that randomness....or (Do you know how the Clone of Natascha Kernesky died?.... facing a charging Skye Jaeger Wall of Steel....It were 3 Shots of a LBX 20. 40 SSRM. several other weapons (can't say---believe 2 large laser 4 PPCs and several other small guns. I didn't penetrate the armor...but still there was a gyroscop hit and an ammunition exlposion....plus three head shots. = 6 hits)

However i think i can excellent understand Pht.
To quote a phrase form Clan-Warrior: "Its MECHwarrior - the warrior serves the MECH"

Its like shooting a gun: your gun is not able to hit the 10 - when you aim for it. But you know where you have to aim for to make the gun hit the 10.
Its the same with a MechPilot...he knows how his Targeting & Tracking systems work... He know how he has to move or how the target has to move that he is able to use his weapons at best. Originally he hadn't any chance to manipulate the aiming.

Pht has explained them in a part of his signature - you should read that. http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

The called shots or the aiming at immobile targets softened that. Some how the pilot is still able to align his weapons manually - or semi manually. I think the called shots screwed balancing issues in some cases...(like the Black Jack O Alt.C...dual LB 10X...called shot high....20 pellets each of them with a 1:6 chance to go for the head....)

So aiming and zero convergence is hardly accommodable with TT armor values.
We all should have recognized that that.
The question is now:
Change the armorsystem or change the aiming system.

[Mypa333]

Pht, on 18 April 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

Every time this has been done ... and it has been done in every MW game so far ... it has made for bad gameplay and lack of fun.

It's called progress. You wouldn't have been playing MWO if it weren't for all the "bad gameplay and lack of fun" in the previous versions.

Yep. Pen and Paper games are way more fun, most of the time... if you have the patience.

Then play pen and paper, I like computer simulators and I don't like the idea of STATIC gameplay.

The game isn't about simulating people jumping, dodging, and aiming at other people.
The game is about people piloting their 'mechs and trying to use their 'mechs in such a way that their 'mechs can hit the targets that said people are indicating and tracking for their 'mechs.

You are talking about skills here. And I can indicate and track a mech for myself and for my team as I play a light. But I don't believe that lowering my Spider's armor to follow the canon is a solution. I'm already putting almost 80% of my efforts in dodging, hiding, discovering enemy mechs, providing good intel for my team as to what points to attack or defend, to watch their back in case a light comes that way and so on.

Piloting is skills!!!


why?

Edited by Mypa333, 21 April 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 21 April 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

The question is now:
Change the armorsystem or change the aiming system.

I don't believe either will happen, but I believe changes to the aiming system in MW:O would cause a furore and anger similar to that of the anger about 3rd person perspective. Adjusting armour... I think people could and would handle, and understand. There'd still be lot sof people against it, like with any change, of course.

[Loler skates]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 April 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I don't believe either will happen, but I believe changes to the aiming system in MW:O would cause a furore and anger similar to that of the anger about 3rd person perspective. Adjusting armour... I think people could and would handle, and understand. There'd still be lot sof people against it, like with any change, of course.

I'd be against changing the armour values for one simple reason.

All of the weapons get thrown out of whack.

High alpha weapons also tend to run hot. if you doubled armour again (as an example) you would then need to retool all the heat values for weapons.

Simply put changing something like armour would require massive systemic balancing efforts all over the rest of the game and

1) I'm not convinced PGI is competent enough to perform such a change.
2) It would require lots of testing and data telemetry to balance around the new changes because it would change the entire way the game is played, meaning it would eat ridiculous amount of man hours. Given pgi doesn't do standard number crunching.

Edited by Loler skates, 22 April 2013 - 12:41 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Loler skates, on 22 April 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

I'd be against changing the armour values for one simple reason.

All of the weapons get thrown out of whack.

High alpha weapons also tend to run hot. if you doubled armour again (as an example) you would then need to retool all the heat values for weapons.

No not doubling...but for example:
Increasing the Catapracts side torso with 50% more armor...but removing 25% from its arms and 20% from its legs.
Same for Atlas or Awesome
Or increasing catapults head armor witth 100% but reducing armor at its sides.

Most simple way... to consider the hitbox sizes.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 21 April 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

The question is now:
Change the armorsystem or change the aiming system.

i understand your point but so far as i can tell what Pht is describing for an aiming system would turn this into world of warcraft with giant robots. <-this may work for some but i personally have already been burned out on WOW. i like having a multi player game that actually rewards skill again. i don't want the mech to aim for me.

i like the direct pilot control with the fairly low tech aiming system. it adds to the flavor of the game and i got my start on the mechwarrior PC games so i am a bit biased on that front. this also fits in with tabletop. there is a reason why clan pilots get bonuses to hit when using mech weapons, because they have superior training and physical abilities that allow them to be far better shots than the IS guys.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 22 April 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

i like having a multi player game that actually rewards skill again. i don't want the mech to aim for me.

Well actually it doesn't reward skill in a matter that it could have. Actually you need just a good eye - hand coordination... simple trainig even a chimp can do.

You said it for yourself...ClanWarriors were born and trained for that. Even the average MechWarrior of the IS...didn't come from the middle school and start to become a supperior Mechwarrior...he visisted a Academy...he learned weeks, months or years to become the brain of a Mech.

I think the best comparison could have been a look to some WW2 Sub-Simulations. You need a firing solution to lance a torpedo. The more knowlege you have the better is the chance that you torpedo will hit the target at a vulnerable spot...allowing you to sinks some ships with a single aimed torpedo over 3 or 4 torpedos that are fired to hit the target somewhere.

That kind of "real" skill is completely missing in MWO.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 April 2013 - 12:59 AM.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 22 April 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

No not doubling...but for example:
Increasing the Catapracts side torso with 50% more armor...but removing 25% from its arms and 20% from its legs.
Same for Atlas or Awesome
Or increasing catapults head armor witth 100% but reducing armor at its sides.

Most simple way... to consider the hitbox sizes.

i like having all of the different mechs with their own quirks and weaknesses. again this is something unique that this game offers. i like the fact that i have to watch which way i am facing with my catapult because the cockpit is a decent sized bullseye on the center of my front torso.

i won't try to argue that we shouldn't balance, but just don't grind away all of the interesting parts in this game in some futile effort to make everything perfectly even. i am tired of games where there is no difference between individual classes, characters, or whatever they choose to call it. i miss games like "alien vs. predator" where picking what race and class you were playing actually made a difference in how you played, cuz guess what, aliens didn't get any sort of gun so you needed to be smart.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 22 April 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

Well actually it doesn't reward skill in a matter that it could have. Actually you need just a good eye - hand coordination... simple trainig even a chimp can do.

You said it for yourself...ClanWarriors were born and trained for that. Even the average MechWarrior of the IS...didn't come from the middle school and start to become a supperior Mechwarrior...he visisted a Academy...he learned weeks, months or years to become the brain of a Mech.

I think the best comparison could have been a look to some WW2 Sub-Simulations. You need a firing solution to lance a torpedo. The more knowlege you have the better is the chance that you torpedo will hit the target at a vulnerable spot...allowing you to sinks some ships with a single aimed torpedo over 3 or 4 torpedos that are fired to hit the target somewhere.

That kind of "real" skill is completely missing in MWO.

i can understand that, honestly i think reducing the armor and increasing the weapon ranges along with the map size would be amazing. playing games like "armed assault" really does take skill, or WW2 flight simulators like "IL2". the skill involved is actually spotting your targets before they spot you and lining up shots at those extreme ranges does take a decent amount of skill. right now the mechs are far too close and the maps far too small for aiming to be consistently challenging.

average engagement ranges should be at least a kilometer.

Edited by blinkin, 22 April 2013 - 01:09 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Loler skates, on 22 April 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

I'd be against changing the armour values for one simple reason.

All of the weapons get thrown out of whack.

High alpha weapons also tend to run hot. if you doubled armour again (as an example) you would then need to retool all the heat values for weapons.

But that would be the wrong example. Doubling armour again is only something to deal with 60 damage alphas, but it doesn'T change the fundamental problem - going for the center torso kill is the best approach to dealing with any mech. Don't waste time trying to leg or disarm a mech, the risks are not worth it (If you're a good shot, of course go for the Headshots).

The armour ratios are wrong for a game with mouse aiming. The chance to hit center torso is no longer 2 out of 12 independent of what you do as a pilot, it is something like 9/12 for every location you wish to aim at. So armour ratios must be based on "importance" of hit locations alone, not on the likelihood to hit them. The CT must have so much more armour that, if you consider the enemies damage output as something you wish to minimize on your route to kill him, you shouldn't try to core him first, you should try to find the weak spots that hold the most firepower first.

With the current armour ratios, if you go for a Splatapults (not that this is still an up-to-date mech) arms instead of its center torso and hit perfectly, the Splatapult damage output until it's completely disarmed (or destroyed) is only 20 % lower if you take out the arms first instead of the CT. 20 % is nothing if you consider that the arms can be moved much better, and that it's much harder to coordinate focused fire to hit the same arm instead of the CT.

Loler skates, on 22 April 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

1) I'm not convinced PGI is competent enough to perform such a change.

Me neither, but let's admit if -if we believe they can't pull that off, we believe they can't pull off anything that would really improve game balance and keep it stable as new tech or mechs enter the battlefield.

[Loler skates]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 April 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

But that would be the wrong example. Doubling armour again is only something to deal with 60 damage alphas, but it doesn'T change the fundamental problem - going for the center torso kill is the best approach to dealing with any mech. Don't waste time trying to leg or disarm a mech, the risks are not worth it (If you're a good shot, of course go for the Headshots).

The armour ratios are wrong for a game with mouse aiming. The chance to hit center torso is no longer 2 out of 12 independent of what you do as a pilot, it is something like 9/12 for every location you wish to aim at. So armour ratios must be based on "importance" of hit locations alone, not on the likelihood to hit them. The CT must have so much more armour that, if you consider the enemies damage output as something you wish to minimize on your route to kill him, you shouldn't try to core him first, you should try to find the weak spots that hold the most firepower first.

With the current armour ratios, if you go for a Splatapults (not that this is still an up-to-date mech) arms instead of its center torso and hit perfectly, the Splatapult damage output until it's completely disarmed (or destroyed) is only 20 % lower if you take out the arms first instead of the CT. 20 % is nothing if you consider that the arms can be moved much better, and that it's much harder to coordinate focused fire to hit the same arm instead of the CT.


Me neither, but let's admit if -if we believe they can't pull that off, we believe they can't pull off anything that would really improve game balance and keep it stable as new tech or mechs enter the battlefield.

Oh yea, I can agree with fiddling with the current ratio of armour between locations that would make a lot of sense.

TT armour system as you said was designed around random hit locations

In a system where you can aim as we do your suggestions certainly has a lot of merit.

Edited by Loler skates, 22 April 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[blinkin]

Loler skates, on 22 April 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

Oh yea, I can agree with fiddling with the current ratio of armour between locations that would make a lot of sense.

TT armour system as you said was designed around random hit locations

In a system where you can aim as we do your suggestions certainly has a lot of merit.

be prepared for a good solid flaming from the horde of table top purists that have made this thread their home.

[MustrumRidcully]

Loler skates, on 22 April 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

Oh yea, I can agree with fiddling with the current ratio of armour between locations that would make a lot of sense.

TT armour system as you said was designed around random hit locations

In a system where you can aim as we do your suggestions certainly has a lot of merit.

And, to emphasize - not just "any" random hit locations - there was one specific table with very specific probabilities for each location. If they had a "roll 1d20, 1-9 is CT, 10-11 is left torso, 12-13 right torso, 14-15 is left leg, 16-17 is left leg, 18 is left arm, 19 is right arm, 20 is head", the values would have needed to be different again.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 22 April 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

And, to emphasize - not just "any" random hit locations - there was one specific table with very specific probabilities for each location. If they had a "roll 1d20, 1-9 is CT, 10-11 is left torso, 12-13 right torso, 14-15 is left leg, 16-17 is left leg, 18 is left arm, 19 is right arm, 20 is head", the values would have needed to be different again.

TT:
rounded: 17% CT, 14% Side Torso, 11% Legs, 14% Arms, 2,78% Head or Critical Hit

I expect a ToHitProbability for MWO of CT or Side Torso for an Atlas of 60-80%

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 April 2013 - 01:58 AM.