475 replies to this topic

[Riptor]

Quote

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.

The randomness represents the inexperience of your avatar, you are NOT a battle hardened veteran when starting the game up, deal with it!

Face it the devs have said there will be Pilot progression, skills and other such things so what you are wishing for is not gonna happen. This is a GAME simulation with char progression it is however NOT you with mouse and keyboard in a mechcockpit pointing your little red dot on the enemy and all your shots land in the exact little centimeter you pointed at.

If it was RL-esque the majority of players would nuke their mech just trying to start it up!

Gameplay comes before everything else, theres a reason why simulators have not made any cash in recent years and that no one touched that genre with a 10 foot pole for such a long time.

Simulations are inaccessible to new players, have only a small following and generaly do not create much buzz in the media.

So to be a viable title in modern day and age you have to introduce aspects of other genres into it, like the aiming mechanics based on your chars abilitys.

Also i highly reccomend you read the DEV faq and the interviews the Devs have given till now because it seems you know even less about the game then the rest of us do.

Or you simply ignore them because you dont want it to be true *shrugs*

Edited by Riptor, 09 November 2011 - 04:50 AM.

[Max Liao]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

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."

I didn't fail to emphasize anything. It can translate over just fine. Two examples:

• Any MMO comabat sequence. It doesn't matter how well you twitch, your character can still miss.
  
• Megamek

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

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.

Yes there are. I for one - admittedly suck at twitch game - don't want that to be the only factor in playing. I believe the combined player and character (twitch and randomizer) is a good balance for both. Reticule shrinking as your character's skill increases still allows for twitch skill and character growth/improvement all in one.

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

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.

Because canon Battletech targeting computers suck. On the flipside, two 'stationary' 'Mechs is almost a sure hit (even in the board game).

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

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.

Not YOUR inadequacies, but your character or avatar ... yes.

[Mchawkeye]

Riptor, firstly, I don't think your tone is appropriate. I'm sure I'm frustrating at times, and for that I apologise.

Secondly, if you look beyond the Dev FAQ that you hold so dear, you might read this:

"The next part of Mech Warfare is controls/piloting a BattleMech. Since our key platform is the PC, it only makes sense to really bring the simulation control system back for seasoned players, with the option to have easy access configurations for newer players. When dealing with controls, we really want to bring skill back into combat rather than heavily assisted combat as seen in most modern day first person shooters. The interface between the MechWarrior® and the BattleMech is being revisited as well. A new 3D HUD system is being designed for the neurohelmet pilot information display. The view point of the game is from the pilot (MechWarrior®’s) point of view. Players will be able to look around their cockpit and even customize the interior to suit their tastes."

Now I don't know what that means exactly, but until I play the game, there is always hope.

Pilot progression is one thing, but until we know just what mechanics they are going to use, anything is open for debate.

Edited by Mchawkeye, 09 November 2011 - 04:59 AM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

I don't think anybody wants a 100% faithful reproduction of the TT rules/fluff. Then you'll get the dude in the Hunchback complaining about his AC/20 always missing at close range and with easy shots. LRMs would be unguided, save for specific ammunitions that are definitely not around during this time period.

Despite not being supported at all by the art, there is indications that torso weapons are mounted on flexible gimbals. (why else would a machine gun weigh half a ton, not counting the ammo?) However, given the pitching and rolling nature of a 'Mech walking, this does not make lasers point hit weapons. But it also does not make them "spray everywhere when mounted in torso and walking" weapons.

Personally, I'd like to see inaccuracy handled with forced chaining. You fire a weapon group, the more weapons in it, the more random spread of points in time where the weapons are fired. We're talking about half a second to maybe full second range here, so don't go crazy. This will make laser boating less effective, and be more visually interesting to boot.

I'd also like to see a pre-charge period to weapons. Smaller weapons=less charge time.

These two combined could create a great baseline for even the perfect pilot to miss some shots. While I agree that weapons in MechWarrior should be more accurate than on the tabletop/megamek, they shouldn't be point-n-click perfect convergence weapons.

Pulse lasers have been kind of the red headed stepchild of MechWarrior. They're supposed to be more accurate, but most games simply have them fire faster. I'd like to see the above two dynamics added, with pulse lasers having much lower charge times. This will allow snap shots that might not have otherwise been possible, providing a reasonable translation that still adds it's own MechWarrior flair.

Edited by Thomas Hogarth, 09 November 2011 - 05:03 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Max Liao, on 09 November 2011 - 04:58 AM, said:

I didn't fail to emphasize anything. It can translate over just fine. Two examples:

• Any MMO comabat sequence. It doesn't matter how well you twitch, your character can still miss.
  
• Megamek

Yes there are. I for one - admittedly suck at twitch game - don't want that to be the only factor in playing. I believe the combined player and character (twitch and randomizer) is a good balance for both. Reticule shrinking as your character's skill increases still allows for twitch skill and character growth/improvement all in one.

Because canon Battletech targeting computers suck. On the flipside, two 'stationary' 'Mechs is almost a sure hit (even in the board game).


Not YOUR inadequacies, but your character or avatar ... yes.

You didn't find the line about my girlfriend funny?

Well darn.

[Max Liao]

Sorry. I have a wife who does the same. You get my sympathies ... as long as she's not looking over my shoulder

Quote

I don't think anybody wants a 100% faithful reproduction of the TT rules/fluff.

I do. But I'm not so far out there to believe it will happen.

Edited by Max Liao, 09 November 2011 - 05:02 AM.

[Dozer]

While I would totally agree that if you had you laser on the head of the mech in front of you (or a very short distance away) there is no doubt it's a hit unless there is some mechanical failure or outside physical force interrupting. I would be cautious however about using a extreme rare occurance as an example of how common battle situations should be handled in game design. Point blank, stationary targets should be a no miss situation; but that's not gonna happen very often. Inaccuracy is a part of war. It should never be eliminated just for the sake of playability imo.

Edited by Dozer, 09 November 2011 - 05:08 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 04:47 AM, said:

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.

So, for lasers, if you give them honestly accurate fire, then we are right back to the boating problems of the previous pages, this will simply not do for a new Mechwarrior game. I do not think anyone here wants to play a game where the best tactic is to stand still for perfect accuracy and peg the first red blip on the radar. Pin point accuracy in any form, inherently allows this and this issue was already addressed for pages. I do not see how a fuzzy reticle makes this less a simulation of Battletech as we know it, see my thread in here again for the reasons why it is backed up by novels and all assorted canon. We may have to just agree to disagree on the issue.

I do agree on letting the real person, the player, gain skill in the game. I think it would be a noble goal if the developers strive to make a game where a year down the line you can look at old replay of your actions and think "Wow, what a newb." I would rather have player skill increase more then "character piloting skill" in this game. A brand new race car driver or tank crew will not do as good as an experienced one. They will not be able to handle situations as fast or as correctly as a veteran of their craft The thing is, to become Top Gun or finish first in a race usually takes years of experience. We do not exactly have that same time frame. We all cannot be pro-gamers. They want to have us, playing our character pilots, go through what would be years of combat and training to improve our characters. These kinds of adjustable modifiers to our own personal skill reflect on the relative years of experience our character pilots are getting.

[Riptor]

Quote

we really want to bring skill back into combat rather than heavily assisted combat as seen in most modern day first person shooters.

Thats actually a point AGAINST you then one for you.

Assisted combat is for example on console an aimhelp like they are common on console games. You shoot more or less vaguely into the enemys direction and the game helps you out by connecting the hits. It was made this way because your normal game controller is horribly inacurate compared to mouse and keyboard wich makes aiming more easy then it is in real life.

Example: Pay day the heist on PS3 where you only need to point your gun more or less vaguely at a police officer to take him down.

Our arguments thought are for making it more difficult to hit your target...

I really cant see how that is "heavily assisting" the player.

Also a little tidbit: All current shooter games only have equipment profession, not character progression. Aslong as piranha says we will have pilot avatars that have skill progression, a part of the game will be based on how good our avatar is and not how good we are with mouse and keyboard.

You might be able to compensate with your own skill but a lvl 1 toon is never going to be as accurate as a maxed out toon. Thats a fundamental law of games with char progression.

Edited by Riptor, 09 November 2011 - 05:28 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

I repeat about your tone, Riptor.

And that is not a point against me. I never said a darn thing about aim assist. Quite the opposite.

And for your information, what about fallout three/vegas? deus ex?

[Riptor]

Those titles cant be compared since the guns in fallout three/vegas didnt lost accuracy but damage value if your skill was below the needed score.

Also youre still a person with a gun in hand not a metal giant with fixed mounts.

You say you dont want a cone or random chance of not hitting the part you aimed for and then bring up a statement by the Devs that says they want to do away with assisting the player...

Yep.. thats a point against you cause you pretty much want the assistance of pinpoint accuracy and eliminate any randomizing out of the equation.

Randomizing makes it more difficult not easier to hit stuff, the devs said they dont want to hold your hands... i have no idea how those two exclude each other.

Or to put it in a different light:

How is mouse and keyboard controls an adequate simulation of mech control? Mechs are controlled by using joysticks and an entire array of different controls.. anyone who has seen a cockpit from the inside knows that theres much more to controling a gigantic vehicle like an airplane then simple mouse and keyboard.

Putting some randomizing in actually does simulate all those aspects, that aiming with a joystick is not as accurate then aiming with a mouse, that a pilot has to do alot more to control his machine then use WASD and right mouse button to use a zoom in function.

Pinpoint accuracy is actually far less of a simulation then throwing in a little bit of random.

[Tweaks]

From the 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.

'nough said!

Edited by Tweaks, 09 November 2011 - 05:45 AM.

[Amechwarrior]

Before I head to sleep myself:

I think much of the disconnect between the TT rules and a realtime sim is this. In TT you have two rolls, one for "Can I hit the guy?" and one for "OK. I hit him, where did I hit him?" The first is controlled and modified by mechwarrior skill, piloting conditions, enemy movement and concealment, targeting computers, and just about everything else in the game you can think of. The second roll, is not effected by anything, almost ever. Where the shot will land is out of the control of the mechwarrior who fired the shot. Almost all the games rules go back to these two rolls as their lynch pin - armor points per location, range, damage, smoke/trees, melee rules, pilot progression and so on. The game can be boiled down to "Can I hit him?" and "Where did I hit him?" and then "What did my hits do to him?"

In a PC game the question of "Where did I hit him?" becomes blurred with and to a point, one in the same with "Can I hit him?" If I can get my reticle over the target, then my reticle must be over a zone of the target. Most games only have two zones, the body and the head, the later takes up 5-10% of the targets cross section. For most games "Where did I hit him?" is entirely pointless unless I am trying for headshots. This melding of these two questions is what makes alpha striking in a Battletech sim so advantageous in the PC versions and not nearly as devastating in the table top. It changes to "Can I hit him, in the CT?" The control over where the shots hit is now directly in the hands of the mechwarrior and the canon rules, fluff, novels and all else are not set up to handle that kind of paradigm shift.

The original point of the thread was along the lines of "Should we turn the the table top rules?" I would word it something like "Should we turn to the table top rules in situations where implementing those same rules does not work?" Yes, yes we should. See my post on page 2, the one about the movie maker and his favorite book for why. I am off for now, and eagerly await the pages of discussion that I will return to.

[Mchawkeye]

Riptor, on 09 November 2011 - 05:21 AM, said:

Thats actually a point AGAINST you then one for you.

Assisted combat is for example on console an aimhelp like they are common on console games. You shoot more or less vaguely into the enemys direction and the game helps you out by connecting the hits. It was made this way because your normal game controller is horribly inacurate compared to mouse and keyboard wich makes aiming more easy then it is in real life.

Example: Pay day the heist on PS3 where you only need to point your gun more or less vaguely at a police officer to take him down.

Our arguments thought are for making it more difficult to hit your target...

I really cant see how that is "heavily assisting" the player.

Also a little tidbit: All current shooter games only have equipment profession, not character progression. Aslong as piranha says we will have pilot avatars that have skill progression, a part of the game will be based on how good our avatar is and not how good we are with mouse and keyboard.

You might be able to compensate with your own skill but a lvl 1 toon is never going to be as accurate as a maxed out toon. Thats a fundamental law of games with char progression.

Those games can be compared as I'm certain you could increase stats, at least in Fallout, which increased your potential accuracy in VATS.

Also, Riptor, I don't want a game where the bullets land where I point them every time. I want A SIMULATED, REALISTIC BALLISTICS MODEL. If you don't understand what that means yet, then I suggest you re-read the entire thread. I haven't once suggested we should be assisted with aiming. I just don't think we should be randomly penalised for it, or indeed, randomly awarded.

Also, I won't be using a mouse and keyboard. I have an awesome joystick.

As for all this 'that is a point against you' poo. Grow up. This isn't an argument, at least, it's not meant to be. It's a discussion which, through your tone you seem to want to degrade into an argument. Stop trolling.

[Creel]

godzofwar, on 08 November 2011 - 07:09 PM, said:

when the discusion was directed on pilot ability i noticed that upgrades on your pilot was not defined. even in the books a pilot got better with each battle. so level of pilots may also be concitered with mach-ups so you wont have a level 20 vs a 5.

also in the later books mechs wern't used as often because of the disarment treaty signed after the jihad event.
something else to think about.
you also have to think about physics when moving firing & also geting hit wich makes it almost imposable to aim at anything even with a highend targeting system

Filthy Wobbie Lies!.

We're playing long before the travesty that is the WoB jihad.

[Riptor]

Quote

Also, Riptor, I don't want a game where the bullets land where I point them every time. I want A SIMULATED, REALISTIC BALLISTICS MODEL.

Yeah well to bad that we are also having particle cannons and lasers. So much for a balistic model for energy weapons.

Heck no one even knows how a particel cannon would behave in praxis.

Also Laser weapons if implemented at pinpoint acuracy (because they travel at the speed of light) would make balistic weapons obsolute cause ill take 5 medium lasers over an AC/20 any time of the day if that means i get to hit that little point in the middle of my crosshair 100% of the time.

Also it is realistic that shots land in random places during combat and that the spread increases during movement. Mechs walk, they arent on threads or stationary, every single part of the mech moves meaning that weapon mounts also move and thus increase the spread. A couple of milimetres movement on a certain part can mean hundrets of meters difference over a certain distance.

Mechs are no accurate shooters.

That is why in RL mechs are a terrible terrible idea for a weaponsplatform, to big, not able to carry large caliber guns because they would simply topple over from the recoil and really not all that great in modern day war tactics.

The point everyone trys to tell you is that without randomizing the hits a bit or making aiming more difficult via a cone system, energy weapons will just become too good and heavily imbalanced.

Something you have not even tried to adress in your demand in any of your posts.

If we take your system... how will you keep people from completly tossing asside all balistics weapons and go entirely energy weapon based? Remember this is a game first and then a simulation. The game has to be balanced, a simulation is not.

[Max Liao]

Quote

If we take your system... how will you keep people from completly tossing asside all balistics weapons and go entirely energy weapon based?

By making projectile weapons cheaper. Remember, between Heat Sinks and the general cost of energy weapons (to purchase/repair), the ballistic ones become the poor-man's weaponry.

Wait, I think I'm supposed to be on your side in this debate ...

Well, my comment still stands. hehe

[Halfinax]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

As for all this 'that is a point against you' poo. Grow up. This isn't an argument, at least, it's not meant to be. It's a discussion which, through your tone you seem to want to degrade into an argument. Stop trolling.

For the guy complaining about a person's TONE in text, you might want to reconsider name calling and trying to belittle the person making fair and valid points that contradict yours.

Riptor is right there is no ballistic physics with light based weaponry so if we only use target leading and bullet drop then ballistic weapons become completely pointless. The cone idea does have merit, and if the pilot's skill with gunnery effects the amount of variance from shot to shot by a relatively small degree then I believe this system could be the most balanced.

Letting a debate, no matter how heated, degrade into name calling should always remain beneath us.

Edit: Text does not carry a tone with it as you cannot hear inflection in the voice, or body language. If you are reading it as angry then that is your interpretation and not necessarily the writer's intent, but name calling is always deliberate.

Edited by halfinax, 09 November 2011 - 07:18 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Sigh.

I'm sure Riptor knows that when I, or anyone else, uses the term 'ballistics model' in this context it applies to all weaponry and how they react with the in game physics. Lasers and PPC all have their own physical laws which can be applied, even if (certainly in the case of the PPC) those laws need to be created.

I'm sorry Halfinax if you don't see what I was saying, but I mentioned several times that I thought his tone was inappropriate. I'm finding his comments to be far to aggressive, unnecessarily so. I asked him to modify this. Twice. And he didn't. Many people would perceive this attempt at getting a rise as trolling.

[Halfinax]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 07:27 AM, said:

Sigh.

I'm sure Riptor knows that when I, or anyone else, uses the term 'ballistics model' in this context it applies to all weaponry and how they react with the in game physics. Lasers and PPC all have their own physical laws which can be applied, even if (certainly in the case of the PPC) those laws need to be created.

I'm sorry Halfinax if you don't see what I was saying, but I mentioned several times that I thought his tone was inappropriate. I'm finding his comments to be far to aggressive, unnecessarily so. I asked him to modify this. Twice. And he didn't. Many people would perceive this attempt at getting a rise as trolling.

The problem with going with a purely ballistic model (yes I understand what you mean I've brought it up myself) is that lasers are beams of light. This means they move at the speed of light, and that gravity has a negligible effect on them. If accuracy is pin point (it hits where you shoot as opposed to hit scan where the damage is dealt at the moment the trigger is pulled) then lasers and energy based weaponry would be the only viable choice. By adding a scattering effect to shots, while simultaneously using ballistic physics, you still take into account player skill and factor in pilot (avatar) skill.

I read his posts, and did not interpret them as overly aggressive or abusive in any manner, but your name calling is not up for interpretation.

Edit: For missing word, and space.

Edited by halfinax, 09 November 2011 - 07:35 AM.