21 replies to this topic

[pink supervisor]

Not try to say tabletop is bad or anything, as I've never played it before. But has good tabletop mechanics ever translated well into good Real time shooting/simulator mechanics? I obviously don't see why everyone seems to hold it to such a standard

[Applejack]

It's the standard because it came around about a full decade before the original MechWarrior did, and is the inspiration for all the games.

[yingjanshi]

It's different. The tabletop is fairly abstract. If you really want to check it out go to - http://bg.battletech.com/

[gregsolidus]

Someone hasn't played Dawn of War...

[Atlas3060]

Part of it is nostalgia and part of it could be simply the table top game was here first.
Honestly I can't see how all aspects of the board game would work for a digital version of the game.
Yes MW3 and MW2 were close but they weren't exact and it is way too early to tell if this will honor those methods or go their own way.

[SquareSphere]

just to be fair, MWO =/= CBT. lets set that right now if you're looking for CBT in computer form go play megamek

[S3dition]

pink supervisor, on 31 October 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Not try to say tabletop is bad or anything, as I've never played it before. But has good tabletop mechanics ever translated well into good Real time shooting/simulator mechanics? I obviously don't see why everyone seems to hold it to such a standard

It's called Mechwarrior 1, 2, 2:Mercs, 3, 4, 4:Mercs

[Atlas3060]

Exactly square and thank you for that sweet looking sig you have.
I play the VG Corps pods still and they don't equal what happens on the tables but they still are fun and yet another way for people to interact with this Universe.

[infinite xaer0]

They hold up, because they're a very good place to start balancing things from, as opposed to balancing everything from scratch. That aside, there are plenty of rules from btech that work for mechwarrior, so it's not like everything has to thrown aside for things to work well, and besides, every single other iteration of mechwarrior has simply been an interpretation of battletech's rules, and not all those games turned out so bad.

[el santo]

There are a number of BT game mechanics I'd love to see in MWO, that have been absent from the latest games. Criticals, through-armor criticals, cone reticule, ammo types, melee combat, fall possibilities, and others I fail to think of at the moment. The more variables the game includes, the more interesting it'll get.

[SquareSphere]

atlas3060, on 31 October 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

Exactly square and thank you for that sweet looking sig you have.

well i can't take credit for the sig, It was made by the devs for MWLL (click on my sig ) but yeah beyond even that, people have to also think MWO =/= MW1-4 either. That's a very dangerous thing and will cause for a lot of frustrations otherwise.

[The1WithTheGun]

Have they stated wether this will be a straight-up "1st person shooter", or will there be - like most other MMOs - behind-the scenes to-hit rolls, crit rolls and/or damage location rolls?

Personally - I think I'd slightly prefer the latter, but I guess it depends on how they plan on developing the gameplay.

[CarpeMortis]

The tabletop rules for the actual engagement of units, does not always transfer well, the closest you've got so far is MW2 and 3. Because in Table Top you are not piloting a mech in real time, you are commanding a unit of mechs one turn at a time. This is an inherent problem, and in the scope of the "simulation" portion, poitning to a tabletop mechanic (ie: UACs jam on 2) does not work well. Like trying to translate Sondheim or Gilbert and Sullivan into Italian, you'll have to take some liberties. However, the mechanics for the off field aspects don't suffer the same language barrier. There is no need to translate them into a simulation context, and the real time vs. turn based is also moot. Most of those rules give actuall measurements of time, and those that don't can still be translated at the official exchange of 1 turn = 30 seconds. So looking to the tabletop for rules on repair, or transit times, is perfectly fine.

Edited by carpemortis, 31 October 2011 - 06:30 PM.

[Tyra]

Certain things of the tabletop game could translate. If its more rpg than fps, the dice rolls can be done behind the scenes. (I'm hoping for a combination of both. Some amount of skill, but some luck/dice rolls too). My hands aren't as steady as they used to be

[CobraFive]

I think they'll get a good balance of action/tabletop mechanics. They seem to have it well in hand.

I would like ot see the return of melee in some regard. Sure, no Axmen but... I want to punch things in my Atlas.

[Tyra]

As I mentioned in this thread here, there are other things you can base on the table top game. Specifically how damage is allocated.

Quote

In the tabletop game, legs were generally designed around x number of armor and then internal structure and then internal hard points (joints, servos, occasionally weapons and ammo). When you shot off all the armor or managed to pierce the armor, then you could damage the internal of the leg.

Depending on what was damaged (and how badly), the mech could be reduced to one leg, or partially working, or if you hit it hard enough (or hit explosive ammo) blown off completely.

THAT is what I would like to see in this game.

With a system like that you have a more complex and imo more fullfilling way of handling damage.

[StoneRhino]

yingjanshi, on 31 October 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:

It's different. The tabletop is fairly abstract. If you really want to check it out go to - http://bg.battletech.com/

hahaha, how is the table top "abstract"???? The biggest complaints about the table top game has been that it can be time consuming, due to details. Did your medium laser hit the target in the right leg, or right arm? Did it hit armor, or did it do internal damage? If it did internal damage, did it damage a component, if so, which component. All of which is determined by dice rolls and record keeping.

No, the difference between the table top and pc games is that the pc games puts you in control of just a single mech, where as in the table top a single player could be controlling 12 mechs, 12 vehicles, swarms of infantry, fighters, artillery, basically any number of many kinds of units that is really determined only by those playing the game. We used to play games of 2v2, where each player ended up with anywhere from 4-12 mechs, a few platoons of infantry, artillery, and fighters. Mechwarrior is named such because you are being placed in the role of a single pilot, instead of a commander level game that the table top game is.

There are other table top games out there that are abstract, where it does not matter where you hit the target and how much damage you did, but just that you hit and how much damage you did. Battletech can have a mech with both arms and a leg missing, but still managing to fight on, whereas other games would just say "its dead". In BT, if its dead, it means it is absolutely dead. If you want abstract Battletech there are a set of rules to reduce the details of combat so that you can play faster games. There are also rules to allow you to run battallion level games, using similar mechanics.


As for how the table top game's mechanics can make the PC games better, you need to look at MW3 and MW4. It is best appreciated by those that play the table top game, then those that have never tried it since you wouldn't know what you are missing, therefore cannot notice the differences. In MW3 your mechs were limited only by their tonnage, the empty space they had, and what weapons you had available. In MW4, your mech was limited by some arbitrary design element where you could strangely only put a missile based weapon in the left arm of one design, but only an autocannon weapon in another design. In the table top game if you have 5 tons available on a design, and the space for it, you could put a large laser in the left arm, or go with an LRM10, or 5 medium lasers, or 10 small lasers, or an Autocannon 2 and a few machine guns, or 2xSRM4's and a ton of ammo.

The idea of MW4's mech designs was kind of interesting, that is until you realized that even if they had a mech that you liked, you might not be able to reconfigure the weapons to match your favorite variant. Another problem was, not with just mw4 but all mw titles, is that the damage can be abstract. Did you purposely target your opponent's left leg? Did you fire and see that your weapons struck the left leg? Did you hit that leg with 35 points worth of damage to a mech that you know can only absorb 20 before the leg is absolutely destroyed? Did you get frustrated by the fact that the **** is still running about with both legs intact? I know I have. I know I have gotten killed because I was trying to be a surgeon while the other guy was just praying and spraying in a game that is far more forgiving of what he was doing then what I was going for.

If you are a car person, imagine a racing game trying to pass itself off as realistic when it has a vw beetle driving around as though it was built for nascar, while the viper is as fast as a ford pinto that just got kicked from behind and exploded. Meanwhile some kid on a bike just lapped you 20 times while throwing news papers into your open window and scoring points for it! You might be partially insulted, you might be kind of mad, you might not think the people that made the pc game were worthy of using the IP.

[Rodney28021]

Mechcommander put you in charge of a lance of mech and vehicles in a RTS game.

[Jayboltz]

I think that the level of detail that went into the boardgame could actually be good for this game simply because a computer can obviously crunch data a lot quicker than a human. So you keep the level of detail about damage and such of the boardgame without all of the time consumption. Figuring out where you hit is irrelevant because that aspect is obviously controlled by your own hand-eye coordination. But to be honest I never actually played the board game, although it looks interesting and I wouldn't mind trying it.

[PANZERBUNNY]

pink supervisor, on 31 October 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

Not try to say tabletop is bad or anything, as I've never played it before. But has good tabletop mechanics ever translated well into good Real time shooting/simulator mechanics? I obviously don't see why everyone seems to hold it to such a standard

All the mechs and weapons have their ranges and damages balanced and have been for decades. I would say yes, yes it works/will work. Also saves them tons of time in game development.