475 replies to this topic

[Mchawkeye]

Greetings.

it has come to my attention that many people keep saying things like 'on the TT...such and such is true and there fore that should be true here'. This seems to be especially true of many of the mechanical aspects of the games, like targeting.

It's a topic that seems to pervade a lot of the topics on the board.

While I understand that, it isn't how I see it.

I see the Mechwarrior games being a separate branch of the Battletech universe, based on the same canon and background as the TT and the RP, related to both but born of neither. Mechwarrior the computer game is not trying to be an incarnation of the TT.

They are simply different systems attempting to describe the same actions.

Mechwarrior is a simulation. The constraints it works too have a different solution to the dice rolling systems employed outside of the computer. As a computer game, the challenges are different, both from a piloting point of view and a game balance perspective. I think it's silly to hold one up against another as proof of something being right or wrong; what works in computer world may not work on the TT and vice versa, and shouldn't be expected to.

I just think people should bare that more in mind when putting forth their expectations of the game.

Or am I completely wrong?

Edited by Mchawkeye, 08 November 2011 - 02:59 AM.

[Reod]

You are completely right.But its useless to explain this to TT fanboys.Look other threads with silly request , that wont stop

Edited by Reod, 08 November 2011 - 02:58 AM.

[FlystreesVagann]

You are totally rigth.

[Dozer]

Agreed. The developers outright explained this in their first Blog review post. It'll be a mix and match affair

With that said it's not a bad idea for people of both camps to explain their expectations as that's what they value in their games. The more clear and articulate they are about that the better. Just don't knock each other for seeing things (mechanical) differently is all.

Edited by Dozer, 08 November 2011 - 03:01 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

You are right about each game system trying to quantify the same experience. A good idea in a turn based tabletop is not always a good idea in a real time sim. However, the table top is Battletech. The canon is written to reflect and expand upon the table top rules(plot armor and artistic license aside) the backgrounds were written with these set of rules in the foreground.

If all we wanted was TT rules in a computer then we have Megamek for that. When you are starting with a blank slate, you have to go to the source material to define what is right or wrong. The table top rules for Battletech are the first product, the first rule set, the definitive versions of what a Battletech experience is. Of course you will not take everything whole cloth and slap a cockpit interior around it, but it provides a guiding path on what you should be aiming for. That is why people go back to the table top rules.

[Mchawkeye]

Dozer, on 08 November 2011 - 02:59 AM, said:

Agreed. The developers outright explained this in their first Blog review post. It'll be a mix and match affair

With that said it's not a bad idea for people of both camps to explain their expectations as that's what they value in their games. The more clear and articulate they are about that the better. Just don't knock each other for seeing things (mechanical) differently is all.

Expectation and what they value should absolutely be discussed on the board; I think that's probably one of its primary functions.

I just fear that some are expecting a virtual version of the Table Top and will scream the heavens down when something is, in their eyes, inaccurate.
How any given problem is solved is worthy of debate, but saying that 'that's how it's done on the TT or in the RPG, so that's how it should be done here', isn't a valid argument.

[Smiffy]

Yeah....having a dice roll tell you you missed when you clearly see your weapon connect doesn't fly in the videogame world, look at the elder scrolls III: morrowind......trying to shank a dude with your sword and 'missing' breaks the immersion, and removes all skill from a game. you might as well put bots on and watch them fight it out.

[Twilight]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 02:49 AM, said:

Greetings.

it has come to my attention that many people keep saying things like 'on the TT...such and such is true and there fore that should be true here'. This seems to be especially true of many of the mechanical aspects of the games, like targeting.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. This is not TT battletech. To be honest, if you were to implement such a system like TT Battletech, the game would be rather bland and boring - it'd look more like MegaMek than an MMO.

On the other hand, however, this is an MMO GAME which incorporates roleplaying elements of it's own. While it does, in a way, reboot the entire Battletech/MechWarrior simulator experience, it is still, at it's heart, a roleplaying experience. You are logging into your character to play a role in a game. You are using unique skill acruement and stats to improve your piloting experience, and you are immersed into a unique component that is part of a much larger game.

Quote

It's a topic that seems to pervade a lot of the topics on the board.

While I understand that, it isn't how I see it.

I see the Mechwarrior games being a separate branch of the Battletech universe, based on the same canon and background as the TT and the RP, related to both but born of neither. Mechwarrior the computer game is not trying to be an incarnation of the TT.

They are simply different systems attempting to describe the same actions.

Hi! You must be new around here if you think MechWarrior Multiplayer did not incorporate RP. Even as far back as NetMech, league play encorporated Roleplay and Metagame. It was an important part of the NM experience, and this carried over into MW3 and MW4/MW4:M league play as well. This was carried to logical conclusions with Net BattleTech's Forum RP and Fanfiction, as well as their league management system which allocated salvage and territory to victorious units. Units actually immersed themselves in the Universe and Roleplay.

Quote

Mechwarrior is a simulation. The constraints it works too have a different solution to the dice rolling systems employed outside of the computer. As a computer game, the challenges are different, both from a piloting point of view and a game balance perspective. I think it's silly to hold one up against another as proof of something being right or wrong; what works in computer world may not work on the TT and vice versa, and shouldn't be expected to.

Unfortunately, one of the problems that you get when you seperate the RP components of a game, such as the support, scout, information warfare/ECM, and shooter characters, is that you end up with a simple First/Third Person multiplayer shooter that just HAPPENS to occur in large machines rather than small characters. Min-Maxing occurs. It doesn't matter that there's a large amount of content out there, that 7 ERLL Nova Cat can alpha 5 times before a forced shutdown! That BK can sling five PPCs while poptarting! That LRMing Daishi is a one-hit-killboat!

RP and Storyline elements also drive players. This has been demonstrated by the majorly successful MMOs out there - Even EVE has a metagame and storyline events.

Quote

I just think people should bare that more in mind when putting forth their expectations of the game.

Or am I completely wrong?

No. I just think that many people on here want a repeat of Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries, where they can set an entire battle behind a hill, pop up, gauss, rinse, repeat and respawn.

[MausGMR]

Tabletop still plays an important part in the creation of a mechwarrior game, because it does half the work for you. Want to know how a PPC should compare to an Autocannon 20 capability wise? Look at tabletop. Yes, videogames need a lot more complex features added on top to increase the feeling of realism, immersion, and make best use of the level of interactivity a video game provides over a tabletop game.

The fact remains however, it's still important to bear the rules of tabletop in mind when designing a game, just like its important to bear in mind the capabilities of real world rifles when designing a shooter like Call of Duty.

Would people be happy if an M82 Barrett took 4 or 5 shots to kill someone in a videogame? of course not. So it's important to build on the rules and the lore that tabletop established. Throwing it all out the window does nothing but annoy people, and give you more work to do.

[Mchawkeye]

Amechwarrior, on 08 November 2011 - 03:06 AM, said:

You are right about each game system trying to quantify the same experience. A good idea in a turn based tabletop is not always a good idea in a real time sim. However, the table top is Battletech. The canon is written to reflect and expand upon the table top rules(plot armor and artistic license aside) the backgrounds were written with these set of rules in the foreground.

If all we wanted was TT rules in a computer then we have Megamek for that. When you are starting with a blank slate, you have to go to the source material to define what is right or wrong. The table top rules for Battletech are the first product, the first rule set, the definitive versions of what a Battletech experience is. Of course you will not take everything whole cloth and slap a cockpit interior around it, but it provides a guiding path on what you should be aiming for. That is why people go back to the table top rules.

So, you think after nearly thirty years, hundreds of books and background material to work from, we should still be using the TT rules as the basis for a computer game experience?

In broad strokes, you are correct. the TT established things like heat playing a factor in mech piloting, and that has to be something replicated in the CG. but, using the example from above, targeting. some people think when shooting a mech it should be random chance where you hit, because that's how the TT defines that particular mechanic. That system is not valid here in a simulation.

[Mchawkeye]

Twilight, on 08 November 2011 - 03:08 AM, said:

Hi! You must be new around here if you think MechWarrior Multiplayer did not incorporate RP. Even as far back as NetMech, league play encorporated Roleplay and Metagame. It was an important part of the NM experience, and this carried over into MW3 and MW4/MW4:M league play as well. This was carried to logical conclusions with Net BattleTech's Forum RP and Fanfiction, as well as their league management system which allocated salvage and territory to victorious units. Units actually immersed themselves in the Universe and Roleplay.

That wasn't my point at all. And I'm really not new around here or the Battletech.
My point isn't about RP elements in the game; of course they exist and should continue to do so.
My point is about how those elements are realised.
Just because in the RPG someone roles a dice to decide this or that, doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be a random chance in the game where you can have direct control over something with simulated physics.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 08 November 2011 - 03:19 AM.

[Twilight]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 03:19 AM, said:

That wasn't my point at all. And I'm really not new around here or the Battletech.
My point isn't about RP elements in the game; of course they exist and should continue to do so.
My point is about how those elements are realised.
Just because in the RPG someone roles a dice to decide this or that, doesn't mean that it necessarily has to be a random chance in the game where you can have direct control over something with simulated physics.

Wait, first off, what are you talking about dice rolls, because I haven't seen any topics requesting hits be determined by dice, and - more importantly - who is even mentioning this?

The problem with using twitch aiming as has been implemented in the past with MechWarrior is that if certain features are implemented, such as interaction with the environment or melee combat, you risk implementing a gamebreaking feature if it does not depend on some kind of external variable other than "I'm covering over a hit-box"

[Mchawkeye]

Twilight, on 08 November 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Wait, first off, what are you talking about dice rolls, because I haven't seen any topics requesting hits be determined by dice, and - more importantly - who is even mentioning this?

The problem with using twitch aiming as has been implemented in the past with MechWarrior is that if certain features are implemented, such as interaction with the environment or melee combat, you risk implementing a gamebreaking feature if it does not depend on some kind of external variable other than "I'm covering over a hit-box"

I'm not really talking about dice roles.
I'm simply talking about the differences in gaming systems and how what is good for one doesn't make it, necessarily, good for another.

[Amechwarrior]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 03:15 AM, said:

So, you think after nearly thirty years, hundreds of books and background material to work from, we should still be using the TT rules as the basis for a computer game experience?

Yes. Because everything else does, and must. In the fiction, the hundreds of books and stacks of background material, a called shot to the leg or head is hard, lucky "through armor crits" are just that - lucky, but they happen, and an alpha strike sent weapons hitting all over enemy 'mechs. Even if you based the ideas from the books, the books based theirs from the TT rules.

The targeting issue is probably the biggest disconnect between TT and sim gameplay. The two just are not built for each other. We expect fairly accurate weapons in just about any kind of 1st or 3rd person game regardless of if it is a sim or fps or cheapo action game. If one weapon is not useful, it will not be used in favor or more accurate ones. We expect to hit something when it is under our crosshairs as players, or the game will feel unfair or random. This is something that the developers will have to balance very, very carefully. I do not think anyone wants the pin-point aiming of the previous MW games, it encourages boating, pop shots and alpha striking as better choices then anything else and the developers have acknowledged this. The obvious answer is a small circle of probability, maybe even one that expands as you move and gets more accurate as you stand still like most FPS games, or hey the TT rules. But whatever mechanisms the developers go with, I think MW4 style reticles and that kind of play is not what they are aiming for. Anything else only becomes more like the TT rules then previous games.

Edited by Amechwarrior, 08 November 2011 - 03:42 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

In simulation game play, a shot to the head is still lucky.

I don't want this thread to boil down to the targeting issue that is being well fed else where (I admit that bringing it up was probably a bit stupid on my part), this is more about abstract ideas in comparison between the media.
As a simulation, with physics and everything else on top, everything should be able to be accounted for though interaction with the virtual universe. Do flight sims use expanding reticules to account for relative speed or turbulence? No, their aircraft and the bullets and the missiles that they fire are all physically represented in the virtual world and the forces within that universe act on them accordingly; weather it's having to lead the cannon to shoot down a enemy or if a flare of chaff is accurate enough to distract the incoming missile.

If the physics engine is appropriately done, then probability shouldn't factor as much as pilot skill.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 08 November 2011 - 03:50 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

Thank goodness on also wanting to drop the targeting issue. I am content to wait until we hear more from the developers, not much point in speculating. The physics engine should handle most of the load of the game, but sometimes you need a bit of randomness.

Well, for flight sims we have some big things that a Mechwarrior game can never have. One thing is reality. They have a real world set of rules to follow, physics and ballistics like you said but you left out the most important part. The planes, guns and missiles actually existed. We can see, from mil.specs, first hand accounts, and plain old flying the **** plane how these thing really act. Then try to match that experience to the program you are making. How accurate is a A-10 Warthogs gun? Well I can go to wikipedia and check, I can ask current and ex-hog pilots, watch videos of them firing on things and even if I am super lucky maybe even witness it myself. If a real life gun is only accurate to 1 mile, or a model of plane only has a max speed of 437mph then I would try and meet those marks with my game(within reasonable balance issues). You simply cannot do this with Battletech.

We could rely on the previous games, books and fluff. But all of those pull their ideas from the Battletech ruleset so why not cut out the middle man and just pull from the big canon rulebook itself. Yes the physics engine will force me to lead a target and prevent my 'mech from stopping and turning 180 on a dime (oh ***, not mechassault movements) but for things outside the raw physical interactions you will have to look to the source material. Things like the aiming interface, weapon stats like reload, heat and damage are things that are not determined by the 3d/physics engine. I have examples and more, but most of them deal with aiming/targeting and I do not feel like diving back into that can of worms. Again, you have to come back to the rules, as a guide to lead you to what feels right as a game and as a slice of the Battletech universe.

[Neozero]

TT targeting methods have to go out the window period. They just would not work in a simulator, that being said there is no reason TT armor values, and weapons statistics cannot be converted over to a first person simulation. If a mech has a targeting computer then put a lead indicator on the mech to hit specific locations, something MC did very well was utilizing the number pad to target specific locations. Point being Mechwarrior games should be a hybrid of tabletop rules and established fiction to provide a setting for the game to take place in.

What really Irks me about MW series games is the extensive amounts of customization offered to min/max mechs. IMO only omni mechs should have this ability as they have weapon pod mounts and standard IS mechs where designed to hold specifically the weapons installed on them. That is not to say customizations did not happen they did but where always done at either great expense or out of necessity because of a lack of proper replacement parts, even then they did not always function properly at that. Having a game with "stock" mechs requires more tactical game play and forces players to move around and not simply hide behind hills jump shoot and hide again because they decked out there mech with JJs PPCs/Gauss weapons only.

Edited by Neozero, 08 November 2011 - 04:38 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

The rules themselves aren't up for discussion, as such; simply how they are implemented.

You could do it with Battletech. It would be easy enough to generate a set of physical rules for, say, the AC\20. test it. then adapt it. test it again until its effect is what you want to achieve. Play testing exists for that very reason; it's no really that much different from the original game testers.

I'm not saying everything should be simulated, because that would be mental. And awesome. But mostly mental. Of course arbitrary numbers exist in the game world as they do in every game, even flight sims. numbers for heat and reload times ect, exist to challenge the player and that's just fine.

I'm not even saying that because it works on the TT means it wouldn't work on the computer.

I'm saying that because it works on the TT, doesn't mean that that is what the computer game should try to replicate when they have a completely different set of tools to work with.

[Riptor]

There are things that can translate well from the Tabletop rules... like for example how fast a mech should be compared to other mechs, how much damage a certain gun can dish out, and there are parts that dont translate into a PC game that well like the initiative system that doesnt really have any place in a real time enviroment

Or for example any rules that are solely based on Fluff or Roleplay. (bloodname tests anyone?)

Both these are fine for the backgrounds but please leave out the fluff and roleplay out of the game mechanics.

Also about the targeting system in tabletop:

They have to be realized different. The tabletop says that a walking or running mech has a harder time hitting things then one that stands still, and that makes alot of sense. A RL tank also wont have pinpoint accuracy over long distances when on full speed.

How would something like that translate into the game? Easy.. the targeting reticule broadens more up the faster you are, representing that at neck break speed the chances to miss are higher then standing still and aiming carefully.

The tabletop rules represent that, its only a matter of translation thats all. But ofcourse theres not really a way to translate 1 : 1 since we have two completly different genres.. turn based strategy vs real time simulation. So the odd rule like iniative will have to be dropped.

Edited by Riptor, 08 November 2011 - 04:50 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Riptor, on 08 November 2011 - 04:49 AM, said:

Also about the targeting system in tabletop:

They have to be realized different. The tabletop says that a walking or running mech has a harder time hitting things then one that stands still, and that makes alot of sense. A RL tank also wont have pinpoint accuracy over long distances when on full speed.

How would something like that translate into the game? Easy.. the targeting reticule broadens more up the faster you are, representing that at neck break speed the chances to miss are higher then standing still and aiming carefully.
.

But that sort of thing could be simulated. I figure, if it can be simulated, it should. Expanding reticules are just a way to introduce probability into something when it could be simulated rather than randomised.

Aside from anything else, expanding reticules are a little bit to arcade...a little bit to...COD...