475 replies to this topic

[Odin]

zudukai, on 09 November 2011 - 12:26 AM, said:

power requirements, weight tolerances per limb, recoil tolerances, ammo space, e.t.c. it can be countered and made balanced from a stock catapult to your grandfathers patchy warhammer.

Sure, if they(Devs) get it all that detailed it mait be working.
If they have no time, release summer 2012, what? 10 month left from now on - simple drop it.

Edited by Odin, 09 November 2011 - 12:55 AM.

[Kudzu]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

You are simply going to have to get it through your bean. 90 percent of the people that will play this game DO NOT CARE about the BT rule set. It worked for the TT game and that is all. Let it go.

People want a game that makes sense and plays with a sense of semi-reality. The TT rules will hobble that feeling, invariably. Sit down fanboi.

Oddly enough, 90% of all statistics are made up on the spot too.

And do try to keep in mind that not only are us "fanboi's" the reason that BT ever got made into the MW series in the first place, but that the devs themselves have said they will be sticking as close as they can to the TT vision of the game.

[Max Liao]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

You are simply going to have to get it through your bean. 90 percent of the people that will play this game DO NOT CARE about the BT rule set. It worked for the TT game and that is all. Let it go.

People want a game that makes sense and plays with a sense of semi-reality. The TT rules will hobble that feeling, invariably. Sit down fanboi.

Personally, I want the BT TT game in a 3D Real Time format, so the less BF3/MW4 and the more MegaMek/BattleTech tabletop authenticity they can put into the game the better. Other than MPBT 3025, I've hated every MechWarrior game out there in the multi-player venue.

Now that we've agreed to disagree, can we get back on the topic of how we can balance the BT game with the MW game to provide a game we all will enjoy?

FAQ said:

Q. How loyal will MechWarrior® Online™ be to the tabletop rules (heat management, melee, armor penetration, etc.)?

A. We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules. Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner.

Edited by Max Liao, 09 November 2011 - 01:07 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

gregsolidus, on 08 November 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:

What ever happened to Mchawkeye in all of this?

I went to bed, buddy. And when I came back, all hell had broken loose. In a good way; it’s been a fine, if somewhat heated debate on occasion while I’ve been counting McSheep.

Few things I would like to suggest. I don’t think anyone could be/should be called ‘TT hater’ or some such other title. I don’t think anyone here actively hates anything, and I think it’s unnecessarily negative.
No one seems to be changing their minds about anything. This probably includes myself. Which is great, I like opinionated people. So long as we all have the guts to be honest, when the game comes out to admit what works and what doesn’t, despite our protestations.
So somethings I’ve thought about while reading back though the thread.
I agree, generally speaking, that some rules from the TT are going to make it into the game reasonably unchallenged and unchanged; rules like heat generation. I also agree that these rules are a fairly good place to start from, but not to end up at. I also think that, with the wealth of background information, new rules could be formulated and that would be just fine by me. Don’t ask me what rules, because I don’t know...that’s entirely on the Devs.

I think somethings should be open to change, like weapon range and ‘mech speed. Changing certain rules would invite balance in the sim that may not be accurate numbers in the board game, but would be accurate to the spirit of the TT. LRMs only 1k range? By far not long enough to be effective as a support weapon, especially if they are trying to introduce a solid sense of Role in the Role playing aspect.
‘Mech speed should also be more accurately replicated. Someone mentioned they slowed it down in the other games. I say make it honest.

I still think that if it can be accurately simulated, it should. Lasers should be pin point accurate. They are frikkin’ lasers. They should converge at a certain point, though, if they converge at all. Thus only if you get the leg of that Atlas in your sights at exactly 250m, those guns aren’t going to impart all their damage in one place. I also think this convergence (of any weapon groups come to think of it) should be set by the player to suit his/her preferred style.

Someone mentioned the idea that the lead your targeting computer (assuming you have one) calculates shouldn’t be bang on accurate. That’s not the worst idea I’ve heard; it could get more accurate as either your tech or your pilot skill increases. Direct fire (if I understand is the accurate ballistics model) is the way forward, as far as I am concerned. Having your shots hit high left just because some number crunching told it to do so would be very, very frustrating. Just like it does in COD: Ever unloaded a fully automatic clip and point blank and miss? Not realistic and really, really annoying. Nerd rage annoying. Missing because you can’t shoot for poo, don’t understand ballistics curves, zeroed sights, relative speeds and predictive movement patterns? Well, get more practice.

I think it’s also important to note that, no matter how aspects of this game are treated, if they keep it close to the simulation I so desire or approach things from a more arcadey solution, I’ll give the game a shot. If it works, it works; I may hate the COD thing I mentioned, but I still played the game because it was a good game...

I’ve just re-read this post before hitting the button. I used the word honest. And I think that Honesty is the magic-direct fire-bullet.

But honesty to what?

[speedreal]

Mechwarrior and battletech both do the same thing, simulate battlemech combat.

The devs have said they will be guided by TT were posible. There is a wealth of balancing information and problem solving there thats got to make things easyer for them and better for us.

Re: aiming mech weapons
This game isnt about a man with a gun as we all know, so lets try not to thing about targetting in that manner. you arnt looking down the barrle of a gun pointing at what you want to hit. weapons are mounted in the body of the mech and are largely fixed mounts pointing forward both arms may be mounting weapons or be replaced buy them. You are not the mech, it dosnt move to your will more than to keep it upright and balenced. All the weapons cant be brought together with pinpoint acuracy and still be simulating battlemech combat.

[Mchawkeye]

speedreal, on 09 November 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Re: aiming mech weapons
All the weapons cant be brought together with pinpoint acuracy and still be simulating battlemech combat.

Uh, why not? Guns of world war two fighters could be trained together at certain defined ranges. In fact, the six guns on the Spitfire were bought together in pairs at different ranges to create a 'cone of death' to increase the chance of hitting your target: Something like that could also apply to mechs. Although I admit that's probably a bit too much...

Still, I'm pretty sure by battlemech age they know how to zero a gun in at range.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 09 November 2011 - 02:29 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

Welcome back Mchawkeye! Yea, things exploded in here while you were gone, no we are not likely to change out own minds but all of us wants this game to do well and be fun. I am only going to touch on some of the more factual things and leave off the more subjective stuff like weapon ranges. I would like to thank everybody for posting and keeping it civil and full of meaningful content. This game has put Battletech in the forefront of my thoughts again and I have not felt this excited in years.

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 01:54 AM, said:

Having your shots hit high left just because some number crunching told it to do so would be very, very frustrating. Just like it does in COD: Ever unloaded a fully automatic clip and point blank and miss? Not realistic and really, really annoying. Nerd rage annoying.

Modern war type FPS have dominated the PC and console market for years with this kind of gameplay CS, CoD, BF3 and the list goes on. I do not see how this is a problem for a game to have. The bigger point is this is in fact how it works in real life. It is a generally good simulation of the real thing. I can use firsthand accounts to this one. I got deployed as a SAW gunner, using that thing while standing or even at a walk is not easy even with a target as close as 25m. If I tried to hold the trigger down and Rambo that thing, I will not stay on target after the first few rounds leave the barrel. We were trained to start at the legs and let the recoil ride us up the body. This is entirely different then firing while prone where you can hit a target at hundreds of meters with ease. The point is, in real life - being accurate is hard when you hold down the trigger while upright, in modern war games it is hard when you hold down the trigger while upright. It is a good simulation of the aiming experience with a full auto machine gun. This is frustrating for some, but the sales speak for themselves it is not a deal breaker for most of the gaming population.

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 01:54 AM, said:

I still think that if it can be accurately simulated, it should. Lasers should be pin point accurate. They are frikkin’ lasers. They should converge at a certain point, though, if they converge at all.

That is the thing, the lasers via bore sights (if I looked down the barrel as it fired) are in fact 100% accurate. This is true in canon, in rules, in reality. A laser does not curve or vary at all. The problem with battlemechs is, that the bore itself is moving, jostling, tracking and being shot at while the 'mech it is attached to is in combat. This is where the inaccuracies come in. The targeting system in the battletech universe are plain bad at trying to take 3 or 4 barrels that may be 10-20 feet apart from each other and 5-10 feet away from the guy in the middle trying to aim them. It tries its hardest, but it just cannot reliable converge all those barrels on the target fast enough. For all we know all Battletech weapons are bore-sight perfect, but we are not aiming this like a rifle, or a tanks gun that is built down the center line and in the center of gravity. This is like holding your arms out at your sides and each hand has a gun, try and put both bullets in the same spot. Yes you could zero your aim in and brace your arms, now try it running, good luck with that.

[Max Liao]

Quote

Lasers should be pin point accurate.

Then targeting computers should simulate canon and be temperamental (see Lostech below) thus performing the same randomizing/miss chance nuance with a different mechanic.

Quote

it could get more accurate as either your tech or your pilot skill increases

Yes. In a post I made I stated that I'd like to see the reticule shrink as your skill increases. This would simulate being green, regular, veteran, and elite, yet still expect skill from the player.

Quote

if they keep it close to the simulation I so desire or approach things from a more arcadey solution

In this we disagree. I'd rather have it less arcadey and more MMO/BattTech-y. There's enough twitch-only based shooters out there, let's actually have one that's more like BattleTech.

Quote

Still, I'm pretty sure by battlemech age they know how to zero a gun in at range.

This is explained in canon by Lostech. Yes, it's a cheap excuse (and IIRC Bills/Weisman admitted that this was implemented to make a playable tabletop game), but it's also what make BattleTech BattleTech. Else we may as well shoot Hellfires from miles away and with pinpoint accuracy. I mean, we have that now, surely we'll have that in the year 3000.

[Mchawkeye]

Just to clarify; I don't want pinpoint accurate weapons. I just don't want inaccuracies based on random number crunching.

It should be tough to hit anything, but those difficulties should come from the physical interaction with the universe, not because the TT rules state that we don't know where any given round will hit, it's up to the dice roll to decide. those rules in the TT game are trying to represent what we should be experiencing first hand in the simulator; those dice roles are to replicate the movement, the recoil, the uneven ground and so forth; all of which should be present in the simulator if it's done right. we should be rocking and rolling, your target should be doing the same, hiding behind trees and buildings, heat should be making poo out of your targeting system...there are so many ways to make the game a simulator rather than COD on metal legs.

Guns should recoil. Absolutely. But I'd rather have the gun actually recoil (and that force affect the Mech) than a reticule that simply signifies the gun recoiling. Though to make comparisons between what it's like for a human to fire a gun and for a Mech is probably a little obtuse.

I'm still unclear as to why a gun in the Battletech universe cannot be zeroed in properly. If that is something in the battletech universe then it should hit the poo-can immediately as it's blatantly stupid. Even muskets were sighted for a range, as best they could be.

[MagnusEffect]

I write this in response to the original poster:

No, you are not wrong.

however...

a very big HOWEVER...

MWO would benefit much from introducing a more "Battletech feel" from the logistical side of things such as force management, battle strategies, universe immersion, etc. much more so than previous titles.

case in point: it always REALLY annoyed me how in MW4 you could buy whole new battlemechs or give them complete overhauls while in the middle of a pitched battle on a planet.

also, battles need to step away from simply being a 1:1 ratio of balancing (that almost ALL FPS do) and more towards variations of a sliding scale of forces larger, but less well equipped/prepared vs smaller but better trained/equipped (I am speaking of the need to introduce some version of a BattleValue system for ranked matches, of course).

[Odin]

Excellent statement Mchawkeye!
Very much appreciated.
I wholeheartedly agree.

Your suggestions are all very well thought out IMO and show us how much room for balancing there really is.
The game is iconic, not those darn weapon stats!

I'm fine with a accuracy being modeled after, what we would expect in terms of working physics,
and I appreciate the thought of a fire/target computer, messing it up a little - as long as it all remains reasonable
and not silly like in those FPS.

Lasers should be more accurate cos they are! Ballistic weapons need more lead, cos they are slower, have mass.
But in no way, do they cease to exist after xyz meters, only MW4 made 'm do that. A gauss shot hit even at 1201 meters!
Not just only 1200! And still got its devastating power. (chuckles)
Missiles with greater speed and longer range is fine for me.

Weapon convergence, preset by the pilot before the drop, is in lots of other simulations, and folks manage very well, no one complains.
Last but not least, respect for everyone here and honesty, should be paramount.

My respect for all posters here esp. those not in par with my opinion and Piranha, trying to get us all under one hood!

Edited by Odin, 09 November 2011 - 03:42 AM.

[Starkiller]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

You are simply going to have to get it through your bean. 90 percent of the people that will play this game DO NOT CARE about the BT rule set. It worked for the TT game and that is all. Let it go.

People want a game that makes sense and plays with a sense of semi-reality. The TT rules will hobble that feeling, invariably. Sit down fanboi.

Incorrect statement with an incorrect attitude buddy. My guild was one of the top 5 guilds in MPBT 3025 and very successful across many MW leagues and we ALL care about TT rules. You do not speak for anyone but you and possibly your guild, so stop making up random numbers about who does or does not care about rule sets.

Far as making a game with a good sense of reality and making sense, then you better man up and learn to like the TT rules cause they ARE reality in the BT universe. The TT rules work with video games as well, the MPBT series mechanics were based on TT rules, just because MW was dumbed down for the masses to understand does not make it superior or better.

[Amechwarrior]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 02:55 AM, said:

Just to clarify; I don't want pinpoint accurate weapons. I just don't want inaccuracies based on random number crunching.

I am all for 'mechs bobbing as they walk, recoil, heat effects and all the environmental stuff. I am going to use "fuzzy dice" or "fuzzing" to mean an enlarged probabilistic reticle that shows the area of inaccuracy based on random number crunching like you see in most FPS games.

Honest inquiry: What do you want? If I have a standing battlemech, and it aims a laser at another standing battlemechs head what happens in your ideal Mechwarrior game?

In this situation, stating that you want neither pin point accuracy, nor a fuzzy dice roll leaves me perplexed as to what physical interactions with the universe will make this not a pin point shot if you do not use some fuzzing. Describe for me what you expect should happen for the first shot, this is not about recoil, heat and all that other stuff for now.

What is your opinion on this post I made well before all this started: targeting-and-you

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 02:55 AM, said:

I'm still unclear as to why a gun in the Battletech universe cannot be zeroed in properly. If that is something in the battletech universe then it should hit the poo-can immediately as it's blatantly stupid. Even muskets were sighted for a range, as best they could be.

Bingo, you got it. Part of this universe it just that. 'Mechs cannot really hit a broad side of a barn. It sounds dumb, it makes no sense, but this is fiction. At first it was because of TT rules, no one wants to have a game take up 20x20 real feet at Z scale models to truly replicate the scale for a 30 min match. However, the huge inadequacy of the targeting systems become further solidified in the many books. Bad targeting systems is as much a part of what makes it Battletech as much as 'mechs not being like gundams and flying everywhere protected by energy shields and blowing up 100 enemies at once with a super gun.

[Riptor]

Quote

Just to clarify; I don't want pinpoint accurate weapons. I just don't want inaccuracies based on random number crunching.

Taking Pilot progression with char stats into mind nothing is really random.

Lets say your char has an aiming skill of 1

His reticule is friggin big because quite frankly your pilot is a noob at tweaking his sensors/computer and overall is not really a hawkeye or has the instincts yet to nail every shot home.. call it what you want he simply is not really good at shooting

Now the next pilot has a score of 5. Hes pretty good at shooting so his reticule is smaller from the get go and doesnt grow that rapidly when hes moving around / shrinks alot faster when he slows down

No random numbers, no dice rolling, hard statistics that tell you what your pilot can do and what he cant do... cause remember people youre not the guys sitting in the mech cockpit.. its your pilot.

He isnt controling his mech by mouse and keyboard... hes controling his mech more akin to the controler of that one Xbox mech game where you had this gigantic freaking controller that made the game really really expensive. My point is theres so much more stuff our Pilot has to keep track of that we as players dont.

Add to that that our pilots will start out green and thus not be battle hardened veterans and i think we can agree that any n00b pilot sitting in his commando or urban mech for the first couple of times will be pretty nervous.

This all is part of character progression and makes the entire game more worthwhile and gives clearly defined rules as to how aiming in general (or the use of electronics, or getting that little 1mph extra out of your machine) works for your avatar.

[Mchawkeye]

Riptor, on 09 November 2011 - 03:51 AM, said:

Taking Pilot progression with char stats into mind nothing is really random.

Lets say your char has an aiming skill of 1

His reticule is friggin big because quite frankly your pilot is a noob at tweaking his sensors/computer and overall is not really a hawkeye or has the instincts yet to nail every shot home.. call it what you want he simply is not really good at shooting

Now the next pilot has a score of 5. Hes pretty good at shooting so his reticule is smaller from the get go and doesnt grow that rapidly when hes moving around / shrinks alot faster when he slows down

No random numbers, no dice rolling, hard statistics that tell you what your pilot can do and what he cant do... cause remember people youre not the guys sitting in the mech cockpit.. its your pilot.

No random numbers? then how does the computer decide where to place shots within that giant reticule? If you want to play the game like you are controlling a person controlling a mech, go ahead. but I happen to think that calling it a simulation, which they do, also implies a certain amount of one-on-one with you and your mech. I'm the pilot of the mech. Me. this isn;t third person, this isn't an arcade shooter. COD. It's a simulation. let it simulate.

Amechwarrior, on 09 November 2011 - 03:31 AM, said:

Bingo, you got it. Part of this universe it just that. 'Mechs cannot really hit a broad side of a barn. It sounds dumb, it makes no sense, but this is fiction. At first it was because of TT rules, no one wants to have a game take up 20x20 real feet at Z scale models to truly replicate the scale for a 30 min match. However, the huge inadequacy of the targeting systems become further solidified in the many books. Bad targeting systems is as much a part of what makes it Battletech as much as 'mechs not being like gundams and flying everywhere protected by energy shields and blowing up 100 enemies at once with a super gun.

As for the above, well then, they should get rid of that shenanigans right away. this isn't the TT, as I have been trying to express. This is a simulator. Their targeting computers be damned, I refuse to believe that anyone in the future would make any weapon system so horrifically inaccurate. That is something they designed for the table top, and since this isn't the table top, I don't feel it should be replicated here with such blind adherence. That might be battletech to you, but it certainly isn't to me; when I played the TT, I took the inaccurate fire as a game mechanic to replicate the various physical conditions the pilot has to contend with when lining up a shot.

The pin point accuracy thing. As I have said, yes lasers should, baseline, be accurate. Missiles, ballistic weapons and such should follow accurate paths affected, as they are, by gravity and wind and relative movement and everything else I probably haven't thought of.

There are so many mechanics that could be instituted to create inaccuracies in weapon fire that are, at least realistic, that I do not believe we need the COD reticule. it would remove any sense of simulation, and makes no sense it featuring on the HUD of any mech.

"Hi. I am a new fighter pilot. Could I please have the REALLY BIG cross hairs on my gun? I hope they get smaller as I see more action, as opposed to my own skills increasing, thanks to experience and training, to better utilise the weaponry at hand..."

I get that systems in place to make guns more accurate need to exist in the game. I just don't see why they have to be pilot based (as opposed to, better computer systems, for example) when you as the gamer or pilot or how ever you see yourself, getting more experience and being better at shooting and piloting yourself?

[Max Liao]

Quote

well then, they should get rid of that shenanigans right away. this isn't the TT, as I have been trying to express. This is a simulator

I'll repeat this as presented in the FAQ:

Quote

Q. How loyal will MechWarrior® Online™ be to the tabletop rules (heat management, melee, armor penetration, etc.)?

A. We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules. Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner.

My emphasis added.

[Xhaleon]

Mchawkeye, Mechwarrior is a simulation of Battletech in the role of a pilot. A simulation of Battletech. Not a simulation of real life, or your perception of how it should be, how it would "make sense" realistically.

If you want a simulation of a mech in real life, go find another game.

I have not read all your posts yet, but have you listed the concrete methods of making weapons inaccurate as per your expectations, while being practically implementable in a video game meant to be accessible to everyone due to online and F2P?

[Dozer]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 04:21 AM, said:

The pin point accuracy thing. As I have said, yes lasers should, baseline, be accurate. Missiles, ballistic weapons and such should follow accurate paths affected, as they are, by gravity and wind and relative movement and everything else I probably haven't thought of.

Just to clear things up lasers aren't 100% accurate. They can be affected by air turbulance, or rather the temperature degradation that air turbulance can cause. Accuracy fluctuations occur when the laser beam passes through two or more different temperature gradients, which has the effect of slightly bending or refracting the laser beam before it hits the target. It can be minimised but never fully eliminated or computatively predicted.

Laser accuracy may also be affected by target reflectance or ambient light. Note the size of the laser isn't a significant reduction factor when dealing with these inherent inaccuracies.

Edited by Dozer, 09 November 2011 - 04:43 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

Please respond to my situation where in your Mechwarrior, two standing 'mechs fire a laser at one anothers heads. You stated not wanting pin point accuracy, but what do you want in this situation?

Oddly, you bring up the fighter pilots situation again what about this this real world, large bore, rapid fire, aircraft fitted cannon is described as having "...80 percent of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) will hit the target within a 20 feet (6.1 m) radius circle." This is the exact kind thing I am asking for, it simulates the fluff, it simulates the canon TT rules, it simulates one of the closest real world analogs to the kinds of weapons a 'mech would carry. This aircraft's targeting circle is just like a CoD or Halo assault rifle circle at rest. You cannot put one round, or many at a 5 or 10 meter target at that range, you can only assume that most of your rounds will hit in the 20m circle.

If I am not trying to simulate the canon fuff/novels or TT rules then what am I trying to simulate?

[Mchawkeye]

Max Liao, on 09 November 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

I'll repeat this as presented in the FAQ:

My emphasis added.

but you failed to emphasise:
"Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner."

xhaleon, on 09 November 2011 - 04:31 AM, said:

Mchawkeye, Mechwarrior is a simulation of Battletech in the role of a pilot. A simulation of Battletech. Not a simulation of real life, or your perception of how it should be, how it would "make sense" realistically.

If you want a simulation of a mech in real life, go find another game.

I have not read all your posts yet, but have you listed the concrete methods of making weapons inaccurate as per your expectations, while being practically implementable in a video game meant to be accessible to everyone due to online and F2P?

I'm not asking for a simulation of real life. I just want people to understand that battletech, the TT game created some rules to simulate experiences which we, as players in this simulation, would already be experiencing. There is no need to replicate those rules again within a system that is already replicating those rules.

I believe I said that lasers should be baseline, accurate. two mechs standing next to each other, laser pointed at the head? Why then the laser should hit it in the face. Because there are no other apparent variables evident in your question.

As for the good ol' Avenger canon. Great. If that's how the gun actually reacts, then simulate it. But I don't need a magic reticule to inform me of my own inadequacies.

I have a girlfriend for that.