475 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

Mchawkeye is just trying to get the admins attention by crying about riptor. I think that is what happens when a guy starts to lose an argument. They start to cry foul, like Mchawkeye is. All that tells us is that round one and two go to riptor.

Here's a tissue Hawkeye. Looks like you need it.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Are people seriously talking about RNGing things like hit/miss? ***?

Go read many of the threads of weapons convergence; they're full of wonderful ideas on how to handle the situation.

But the day I pull the trigger while I have a perfect shot lined up and get some bullshit "Miss!" flytext above the enemy mech is the day I uninstall this sorry excuse for a game.

There are many ways to simulate realistic shot dispersal. We don't need a RNG to ruin the game.

[Mchawkeye]

OK. Not sure I called him a name as such, so much as called him out, but what am I meant to do? I asked him to settle down as I found it offensive. Am I just to not find it offensive any more? Is that not enough that I found it offensive to ask him to be nicer?

Also, while your point is as valid as it was the first time it was made, but people seem to forget the disadvantages of lasers (huge heat) couple with the fact that for the laser to actually hit the target, your reticule would have to be over the part of the mech you want to hit; if the mechs move properly (whatever proper is) then that should be a task in and of itself.

Never mind the fact that you assume people want to play to win. there are some other, possibly a bit like me, who don't play simply to squash people. one of the reasons I am so looking forward to this, no matter how they implement the physics engine, is the use of roles and information/electronic warfare. so it;s not all about boating and the easiest weapons and the quickest kills.

Anyway, I prefer the noise canon makes....

[Mchawkeye]

red beard, on 09 November 2011 - 07:57 AM, said:

Mchawkeye is just trying to get the admins attention by crying about riptor. I think that is what happens when a guy starts to lose an argument. They start to cry foul, like Mchawkeye is. All that tells us is that round one and two go to riptor.

Here's a tissue Hawkeye. Looks like you need it.

Wow.

Jesus.

[Korbyn McColl]

Creel, on 08 November 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

Not to pick a nit but...

PnP RPGs and TT wargames are slightly separate in my mind. Yes, BTech and MW exist as Pen and Paper games, but for me it's all about the TableTop miniature rules. When you discard the hex maps and start building terrain to scale and playing on 4'x8' gaming tables on a regimental combat level, you have left the realm of PnP.

From some of the elaborate terrains I've seen, "Whole Room" might be more appropriate than "Table Top". But you still play with a pencil and paper. ,-)

gregsolidus, on 08 November 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

But they are suggesting obtrusive aiming mechanics,steep death penalties,and the near removal of customization because they can't seem to get past the fact that the advanced ruleset,while great for role playing and extended campaigns,really doesn't lend itself for being the foundation of a video game.No one is saying that the source material should be ignored but it's sad to see so many people can't draw the line between accuracy and fun and see certain rules just don't work here.

It's easy to read the worst into what the PnP fans are suggesting. But really, what they're asking for is not that severe. Consider these possiblities:

1- "Death Penatly" - Your mech dies in a drop, you're out. No respawn. Your pilot ejects and lives to fight another day. You have to pay repair costs (nothing new here, this is part of every MW game ever designed). But you can drop in the next game no problem.

2- "Weapon Skills" - The more experienced your pilot is, the easier it is for him to hit with his weapons. This doesn't mean the bonus needs to be absurd. A "max level" pilot should not have a huge advantage over a newbie. But maybe when they aim to hit their opponent they are more likely to hit the spot they are actually aiming at with minimal splash damage as opposed to just hitting the mech's torso. So a hit is a hit (if you aimed right), but the higher your skill the more likely that hit will hit a leg or the head if that's what's under your reticle. Or maybe lock times just come 0.2 seconds faster.

3- "Pilot Skills" - Again, no huge advantage, but maybe you are less likely to fall down when hit in the leg, or your DFAs are more likely to hit your target in the head rather than the torso.

4- "Custom Mechs" - MW4 had about the most "realistic" customization system for Mechs seen in any iteration of the CRPGs over the years. Oh, the NM95 lab was nice, but you could turn a warhammer into a missile boat, which was very much counter to the tabletop mechanics. Omni-Mechs came into existence in BT for a reason. Prior to their existence, customizing your mech took a hell of a lot of time and resources. And if you modified the mech too much it would be visually unrecognizable on the battlefield. If those elements were put into MWO I think you'd make most of the PnP fans happy. So you swapped those dual PPCs on your Marauder for dual LRM20s? Guess what? The arms visually change to show LRM20s rather than PPCs. Not to mention it cost you more to do that than it would to swap a weapon component out on an Omni-Mech.

There have been plenty of video games over the years that have done quite well implementing character skills. And the MechWarrior universe has always appealed to role-players. Even the most diehard FPS fans are attracted to units with rich role-playing sourced backgrounds, whether they are actually into role-playing or not.

Now, let me clarify: Whatever they come out with, I'm playing. But it would, imho, be nice if they could try to keep true to many of the core rules while not losing the fun and excitement of the multi-player MW games many of us know and love.

[Halfinax]

To be perfectly honest with you McHawkeye I'd rather see the weapons be based on convergence range as set by the player on the fly in addition to ballistic physics, but this doesn't take into account the devs intention to have the player's character to have a skill set of their own that effects game play in this manner, so the best middle solution that I've seen suggested that allows for both skill shooting, and character ability is the cone of fire (this is not the same as RNG).

Most people play to win, and will do so by any means necessary. Which is why I am against full customization of 'Mechs(omnis being the exception as that is how they are designed), and instead using canon units and their variants as they tend to be more balanced.

Devil man I agree with you in most of those thought processes except as mentioned above.

Edited by halfinax, 09 November 2011 - 08:30 AM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

halfinax, on 09 November 2011 - 08:29 AM, said:

Most people play to win, and will do so by any means necessary. Which is why I am against full customization of 'Mechs(omnis being the exception as that is how they are designed)...

So you don't want people to win by any means necessary except for omnimechs? Got it. That's not contradicting at all.

Let's face it, the concept of omnimechs simply isn't feasible in this type of game. You can't have customization for one set of mechs and not for the other. That's just makes the non-customizable (battle)mechs nothing but worthless stepping stones to omnimechs.

Ya can't have omnis, ya can't have clan tech. I don't give a **** what the lore says as both of those things will ultimately be impossible to balance and ruin many aspects of the gameplay.

For this to work we need all mechs to be more or less on equal footing. Omnis and clan tech are the eombodiment of severe imbalance in the IP. They were back when they introduced to the TT and they will be here too.

The advantage is simply too great to include either and still expect IS tech and/or battlemechs to be competitive and desirable.

Edited by Cavadus, 09 November 2011 - 08:40 AM.

[Max Liao]

For the record, while I disagree with McHawkeye, I don't think he's being a troll, irrational, or someone who needs a tissue. He's expressing his point, and maybe getting a bit heated (or maybe that normal verbiage for him - we just don't know), but I haven't felt he's getting out of hand.

With that said ...

Some people want true ballistics and science ...

Some people want Battlefield 3 in 'Mech form ...

Some people want MechWarrior 5 ...

Some people (read: me) want BattleTech, with all of its idiosyncracies brought into a real-time MMO form.

I think in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree and hope for the best from the devs.

[Mchawkeye]

Full customisation is an interesting one, one I've be pondering. I think IS mechs should be harder to alter, if not neigh on impossible/madly expensive. I would be quite nice to see someone whose spent a lot of time and cash spec-ing his mech up only to have it trashed; and I think that reason is possibly way so many people wont, unless they crazy.

Clan mechs should follow the omnimech abilities as far as altering them goes.

Maybe the Clan mechs should be much more expensive to buy, but cheaper to run (so to speak), vice versa for the IS mechs?

[Korbyn McColl]

For the most part, this thread is coming up with some constructive ideas for the devs to ponder. I'd like to think no one is being intentionally insulting or degrading. I'm certainly not, and if anything I've said comes across that way I apologize.

But I do think it's important that everyone remember that text based conversations can often come across in ways not intended. My suggestion: cut one another some slack. Assume that no one is being intentionally insulting. If someone comes across as clearly insulting, ignore them. Always remember the old adage: "Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference."

[Halfinax]

Cavadus, on 09 November 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:

So you don't want any Pay2Win stuff except for omnimechs? Got it.

Let's face it, the concept of omnimechs simply isn't feasible in this type of game. You can't have customization for one set of mechs and not for the other. That's just makes the non-customizable (battle)mechs nothing but worthless stepping stones to omnimechs.

Ya can't have omnis, ya can't have clan tech. I don't give a **** what the lore says as both of those things will ultimately be impossible to balance and ruin many aspects of the gameplay.

How are you extrapolating from my point that I want any pay to win mechanic at all! I didn't say you could only purchase Omnis with real money or anything akin to that. If Omnis are included it makes sense for them to be modified within the realm of the pods they have available. Some of the gear (armor, engine, heatsinks, cockpit, and even some weapons) are hardwired into the chassis with space allocated for modification with modular pods.

I don't believe any 'Mech should only be accessible through real currency exchange. I believe everyone should have the same oportunity to earn every 'Mech through in game currency.

As to making them worthless stepping stones I believe that is also a skewed view. I personally prefer IS tech to Clan tech. I think the matches should be balanced using Battle Value(BV) rather than tonnage or any other system. It is the best means of balancing Clan Tech to IS tech.

[Korbyn McColl]

Didn't the IS have a huge advantage over the Clans in numbers alone? Simply balance things based on that. Two Lances vs. one Star (8 vs 5).

As for Omni-Mechs, while it's true that it's much faster and much less expensive to customize an Omni-Mech, they were a lot more expensive to build in the first place. If a unit drops with an Omni-Mech, count that towards their overall unit totals.

[Mchawkeye]

halfinax, on 09 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

I don't believe any 'Mech should only be accessible through real currency exchange. I believe everyone should have the same oportunity to earn every 'Mech through in game currency.
.

In fact, I believe they have stated as much. Which is great.

[Korbyn McColl]

halfinax, on 09 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

I don't believe any 'Mech should only be accessible through real currency exchange. I believe everyone should have the same oportunity to earn every 'Mech through in game currency.

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:

In fact, I believe they have stated as much. Which is great.

That's the way I read the FAQ/Interviews as well.

EDIT: So that multi-quote didn't work out as originally intended. =) Fixed now, though.

Edited by devil man, 09 November 2011 - 08:52 AM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

halfinax, on 09 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

How are you extrapolating from my point that I want any pay to win mechanic at all!

Sorry, I edited my post before you replied.

Quote

I personally prefer IS tech to Clan tech. I think the matches should be balanced using Battle Value(BV) rather than tonnage or any other system. It is the best means of balancing Clan Tech to IS tech.

So you want to gimp yourself arbitrarily? Why? Is there any reason beyond you simply being an IS fanboy?

Any casual player who rolls into MWO will see that clan tech is superior and that most of their mechs are omnis. If that's the case there will be absolutely no reason to play IS and those players which do will be put at a huge and pointless disadvantage.

It'd be terrible the game. It's time to let go of the stuff that made Battletech suck. This is a game that needs balanced factions. You can't hand out the insane advantages that the clans get and still expect players to gimp themselves in the name for some poorly written lore.

That would be horrible for the game and it simply wouldn't work.

Edited by Cavadus, 09 November 2011 - 08:53 AM.

[Halfinax]

devil man, on 09 November 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Didn't the IS have a huge advantage over the Clans in numbers alone? Simply balance things based on that. Two Lances vs. one Star (8 vs 5).

This is where BV comes in for instance a Timber Wolf prime's BV is 2,737, and an equivalent IS 'Mech the primary variant of the Marauder's (equal tonnage) BV is 1,363. If you went soley by tonnage or equitable numbers the IS would always be out matched, but bring in BV and it gives a more equivalent playing field for the IS. with 3000 (this would be a very low number and is intended purely as an example) BV for a team I could field one Timber Wolf, or 2 Marauders with some points left over for both sides to fiddle with. This can easily be converted to work within MWO as well. Sure, everyone on a given team would have to have some give and take to ensure that everyone plays, but this is much better than just being crushed by all the guys that go Clanner.

[UncleKulikov]

BV is a good model to start from, since it calculates a Mech's potential. But it should be recalculated based on MWO's balance instead of the tabletop's balance.

[Halfinax]

UncleKulikov, on 09 November 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

BV is a good model to start from, since it calculates a Mech's potential. But it should be recalculated based on MWO's balance instead of the tabletop's balance.

Naturally. Most of the TT rules have to be adapted to fit in a real time combat scenario, but it (BV) is in my opinion the most equitable means of balancing matches.

[Korbyn McColl]

halfinax, on 09 November 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

This is where BV comes in for instance a Timber Wolf prime's BV is 2,737, and an equivalent IS 'Mech the primary variant of the Marauder's (equal tonnage) BV is 1,363. If you went soley by tonnage or equitable numbers the IS would always be out matched, but bring in BV and it gives a more equivalent playing field for the IS. with 3000 (this would be a very low number and is intended purely as an example) BV for a team I could field one Timber Wolf, or 2 Marauders with some points left over for both sides to fiddle with. This can easily be converted to work within MWO as well. Sure, everyone on a given team would have to have some give and take to ensure that everyone plays, but this is much better than just being crushed by all the guys that go Clanner.

Exactly. And it's already been said in the interviews that we should expect unit values to play a role. So the odds of 4v4 in a Clan vs IS battle are just about impossible. New players might jump at the bit to play Clan mechs, but when they find out its 5 of them versus 8 IS, they may regret that decision.

[Zyllos]

Not sure why people are talking about IS vs. Clan stuff anyhow. I thought the devs have stated there will be no clan stuff in the beginning. If this is wrong, then excuse me and continue debating.

But about the weapon convergance and hit/miss related to a mech warrior and in-game play, a cone of fire that increases/decreases with currently performed actions, mech warrior skill, and current weapons in the weapon group. Standing still with a single PPC in your weapon group on a veteran mech warrior? Small cone of fire. Walking forward with your torso turning to the left to unload 2 SRM-2s with 2 Small Lasers on an average mech warrior? Medium sized cone of fire. Running full blast while jump jetting and alpha striking a target on a green mech warrior, huge cone of fire. You catch the gist of the idea, it looks good on paper. Now to see what the devs think and actually implement.

Oh, and about BV, it also seems good on paper. I think they need to go with a combined approach dependent on the mission. Mission is a surgical strike behind enemy lines? Make the attacking team have a smaller amount of tonnage compaired to the defending team. BV should always be the same.