475 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

Expecting the devs to adhere to the TT rule set, IMO, is a bit akin to expecting a real estate agent to adhere to the rules of Monopoly. It is really silly. This game is a REBOOT. It is meant to reintroduce the game to the larger, unexposed portion of the world. The TT rules are antiquated to say the least and offer little in the way of true guidance. They need to simply make the game appealing to gamers...not fan boys who have the manuals sitting next to them as they play, crying about what should or should not be allowed.

Battletech is not defined by it's rule set, but rather by the provocation of the individuals imagination. Some players NEED rules and boundaries to feel like the game is a finite experience, others just want to play and have fun.

BURN the TT rules and start over!! Thats what I say. MW is NOT the TT rules, it is a world of mechs and war. The rules CAN be redefined and rewritten.

[mara]

Well, let us put aside the table-top rules, and look at what the novels had:

First, remember that your 'mech is slaved to the pilots sense of balance, and he is
dealing with something that gets sluggish when it gets hot, and still has to deal with it
traversing.It is not so much that the Warrior cannot move fast enough to target manually,
but that the 'mech is moving at an irregular rate, and he needs the targeting system to
be as accurate as possible.

Now, the depiction of the targeting in the novels is that you designate the target, and then
adjust your 'mech until you get the gold of a "target lock." It pretty much goes for center
of mass, though. If you are aiming anywhere else, you have to basicly go against what
the on-board targeting system is telling you. Now, if you shoot when you get the golden
glow, you are pretty much going to hit something, even if your weapons are not all in line
yet. This is why I could see them using a "cone" effect for the direct fire weapons aiming.

Pulse Lasers are more accurate because they are essentially a burst of laser fire. Why
does their damage hit all in one place? Easy: that is where, when you are adjusting your
aim you STOP the laser. They essentially do negligible damage as you are tracking them
because they are not hitting enough in one spot to vaporize armour until you put the focus
on the spot where you are finally "shooting"

This is all stuff that the devs would have to take into account in the coding. On top of that, they
have to make sure to discourage boating and people just running along and taking legs
or center torsos or head kills as a matter of course. It is something I did not like about MW4:
that I could just casually pick my target locations and blast them with one well placed TIC volley.

One thing I hope, however, they do keep from MW4? Falling and hitting a light 'mech with heavy
firepower that if it does not kill the light, causes the light to go flying(I loved hitting Cougar
with 4 Clan ER PPCs from an Awesome, and watching the thing skid down the street).

[MausGMR]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

Expecting the devs to adhere to the TT rule set, IMO, is a bit akin to expecting a real estate agent to adhere to the rules of Monopoly. It is really silly. This game is a REBOOT. It is meant to reintroduce the game to the larger, unexposed portion of the world. The TT rules are antiquated to say the least and offer little in the way of true guidance. They need to simply make the game appealing to gamers...not fan boys who have the manuals sitting next to them as they play, crying about what should or should not be allowed.

Battletech is not defined by it's rule set, but rather by the provocation of the individuals imagination. Some players NEED rules and boundaries to feel like the game is a finite experience, others just want to play and have fun.

BURN the TT rules and start over!! Thats what I say. MW is NOT the TT rules, it is a world of mechs and war. The rules CAN be redefined and rewritten.

Then why waste the time getting hold of the licence and putting the effort into staying true to the series?

Why not just take the easy path and make Robot-Tank-Warriors in Space?

Should Call of Duty guns fire paintballs? Should Flight Simulators have you piloting giant flying squirrels?

The tabletop is a base point, not a flippin bible to follow to the letter, accept it, move on.

Edited by MausGMR, 08 November 2011 - 09:00 AM.

[Cake Bandit]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 08:39 AM, said:

Expecting the devs to adhere to the TT rule set, IMO, is a bit akin to expecting a real estate agent to adhere to the rules of Monopoly. It is really silly. This game is a REBOOT. It is meant to reintroduce the game to the larger, unexposed portion of the world. The TT rules are antiquated to say the least and offer little in the way of true guidance. They need to simply make the game appealing to gamers...not fan boys who have the manuals sitting next to them as they play, crying about what should or should not be allowed.

Battletech is not defined by it's rule set, but rather by the provocation of the individuals imagination. Some players NEED rules and boundaries to feel like the game is a finite experience, others just want to play and have fun.

BURN the TT rules and start over!! Thats what I say. MW is NOT the TT rules, it is a world of mechs and war. The rules CAN be redefined and rewritten.

Redefined and rewritten? Of course! We're essentially making the jump from a book to a film. There are new rules and constraints presented by the medium.

Absolutely burning everything that came before? Then why even invest in the intellectual property at all? You have to pay attention to what already exists to SOME degree or you're just making any old random game.

You're just asking for another MechAssault.


You have to look at them, learn what you can, see what worked, what didn't and then translate it to a new medium. It's a difficult process, and it's going to take a whole lot of thought. It's the same with world history, not taking the time to study and learn from all this is going to ruin everything for you.

Those fanboys are a vital tool and tend to outline what really made those games memorable. Listen to them, then find out what will and won't work in the new game.

Edited by Cake Bandit, 08 November 2011 - 09:03 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Riptor, on 08 November 2011 - 08:29 AM, said:

I disagree..

A broadening of the reticule is a simulation of weapon spread. If you fire a machinegun at someone the bullets will spray.. they will not magically all hit the exact same spot on the enemys body just as if they where lined up behind each other. And this is with only one gun... try shooting two pistols at the same time.. they will not hit the same spot... heck even linked machineguns like they where used on battleships as AA where spreading like crazy.

Theres recoil, aiming skill and other circumstances (is the enemy moving, am i moving, hows the visibility on the battlefield) present during a fight. So a broadening reticule to simulate that if you fire the shots could land anywhere in said broadened reticule is actually the only way i personaly can imagine to translate all these circumstances into a simulation.

Also pinpoint shots are more arcade then limited randomizing of the firing cone. ;P

Also there are energy weapons ingame wich dont abide to the same physical rules that aply to ammunition based weapons... if energy weapons would have pinpoint accuracy then (as has been said by others) they would make autocannons or missles completly obsolete, thats another reason why i think that if you fire your gun it should be a bit random where it hits in the reticule. (you know.. just like in the books... oh im such a hypocrite XD)

This also enables player chars who have put lots of XP into improving their gunnery skill to be better at aiming then a fresh player who just startet out, giving the player a sense of progression for his char, wich translates into people spending more time and maybe money in the game.

Pretty sure I said nothing about pinpoint shots; you are assuming it's either the expanding reticule or hyper accuracy.

My point was that the expanding reticule, as an object, isn't realistic. As far as realism goes in a world of giant walking tanks.
Guns can recoil. They do in so many games, including COD, which throws your aim off beyond that reticule. There are many ways to introduce gunnery and targeting issues in the game with out resorting to affectation. I like the idea that ballistic weapons are zeroed in at range and behave accurately, that you have to lead the target or aim high or some such.

Peoples concerns about lasers being to accurate are valid, to a point. However, they generate heat to far greater degree than ballistic or missile based systems; they have their draw backs. But ultimately, they are in, fact, lasers. They operate at the speed of light. Or near as dammit. why shouldn't they be accurate? Assuming to can hit the target while you are both moving over rough ground, you only use lasers so your heat is way up and maybe that's messing with your electronics and ******** up your HUD...Maybe.

I am beginning to suspect that people are underestimating the possible challenge of piloting a mech with today's potential simulation complexity.

[Creel]

The key thing to keep in mind, I think, is that this is a BattleTech Simulation game. There are 30 years of precedent in defining what it means to pilot a Battlemech. A Battlemech, is a big, slow, unwieldy beast of a machine. It has clearly defined capabilities and limitations. If we want to faithfully simulate the experience, then these capabilities and limitations should have equal weight. These capabilities and limitations are distinctly separate from the pilot's capabilities and limitations, and the interaction between pilot and mech is an complicated, unwieldy, beast of a process.

I'm seeing many comments that seem to suggest that Battlemechs should behave like powered armor (i.e. fine motor control, instant response), rather than a multi-ton RC robot with cannons strapped to it. One could make a very entertaining game based on that idea. Giant robots that behave as responsively as your own limbs. I'm sure you could come up with a story-line and world every bit as rich and varied as the Battletech IP. I suggest that we call this new franchise RoboTech!

oh...wait...

Edited by Creel, 08 November 2011 - 09:22 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Cake Bandit, on 08 November 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

*I've never played the table top, but the guys who have, seem to present the best understanding of the lore and actual functions of the tech present in the established universe*

I've never played the tabletop version, but I've looked into it for quite a bit.

Quote

Also there are energy weapons ingame wich dont abide to the same physical rules that aply to ammunition based weapons... if energy weapons would have pinpoint accuracy then (as has been said by others) they would make autocannons or missles completly obsolete, thats another reason why i think that if you fire your gun it should be a bit random where it hits in the reticule. (you know.. just like in the books... oh im such a hypocrite XD)

Not that much, though, in an era where DHS are only slowly being reintroduced.
A 'Mech can fire only two ER medium lasers while staying heat-neutral unless additional heatsinks are installed (it takes 5 SHS to sink one ERML). Which would lead to either rapid overheating, or a fair number of backup weapons.

Quote

Expecting the devs to adhere to the TT rule set, IMO, is a bit akin to expecting a real estate agent to adhere to the rules of Monopoly.

As the FAQ states:
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.

Quote

Why not just take the easy path and make Robot-Tank-Warriors in Space?

Because space is an utter **** environment for robots/tanks to fight in.

[Odin]

OK.

Of course, the board game, <wait until 's you turn, roll the dice and pray>, was, where all this started.
Hats up for all who played it, are still playing it, this posting is not meant to belittle you lads.
I would have been glad, if I had a chance to find someone willing to give it a try, but here around, no one cared.

The German Leopard 2A6 BATTLEMECH 60+tons, 70km/h. AC120(42 rounds), no JJ - at the moment,
can hit where the reticle is pointed, on the fly.
With a targeting computer, or without it, well within 2K, absolute lethal.
Make no fuzz, it takes 1 or 2 hits. Depends on the vehicle on the receiving side.

If, lets say in MW4, a Mech hits a target with 6 LL, center torso, at range 700meters,
and all whats left of the victim is some sort of "Aufschlagbrand" , thats cool and realistic.
Alpha strikes and boating go's hand in hand and is the fastest way to your next frag .
Congrats! You not just ruined the day for the lad sizzling in his pit,
but also for everyone else around, this ought to be Battletech,
but what the Heck, lately no one gives a d°mn ... Rant over.
The down side of having old geezers hanging around here is , you have to get used to the moaning,
we're used to grumble like this into our beards for days!

Now how about MechwarriorOnline?

If it ought to be entirely point and hit, I'd be much surprised.
Rekon, the best chance for a good gameplay in this, I say the bad words: this MECH SIMULATOR,
will translate not only into pilot skill, entirely and only, you,
but also into simulated skill, that freaking Mech, Mech target computer, whatsoever!

S!

Edited by Odin, 08 November 2011 - 11:02 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

The German Leopard 2A6 BATTLEMECH 60+tons, 70km/h. AC120(42 rounds), no JJ - at the moment,
can hit where the reticle is pointed, on the fly.
With a targeting computer, or without it, well within 2K, absolute lethal.
Make no fuzz, it takes 1 or 2 hits. Depends on the vehicle on the receiving side.

Based on a real tank?
I'd give it a Light Rifle (Cannon) as the main gun.
Making even the Arbiter security 'Mech deadlier (which has a Heavy Rifle (Cannon)).

[Korbyn McColl]

I'm sure it's already been stated, but just incase. From the FAQ:

Q. What are your plans for MechWarrior® Online™ multiplayer? Is it going to feel similar to other MechWarrior® games or new?

A. MechWarrior® Online™ is going to be a hybrid of new and old gameplay. Some controls and features will be familiar to seasoned players while some gameplay features and mechanics will be completely new. We really want to design the game so that it feels like you're piloting a HUGE BattleMech® in an epic combat scenario.

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.


In other words, expect a hybrid of the CRPGs and the PnP game. Which, imho, is the way to go with this anyway! =)

[Mystwolf]

while I understand some things cannot totally convert from TT to Sim. I also think saying nothing converts is just as wrong. I believe a lot can come over.

The big thing to remember is to keep it civil and even if you do not understand my PoV or the otherway around, we do not need to get derogetory or begin name calling about it.

[CL_Kodiak]

I like Devil Man's post. A lot of the posts here seem to talk down towards TT and bash TT fanbois.

The fact is that this game started as TT and aside from anything physics related (moving, targeting, collisions, heat etc) I would expect them to incorporate the things we know and love about the BT universe and that comes from TT and the the reference material out there. I would go into specifics, although I am sure it would derail this topic

My take on this whole thing is that they will use today's technology coupled with the wealth of reference material on the history of this game and build it as close to the "real" thing as they can while maintaining the whole entertainment factor.

[Gaius Cavadus]

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. 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?

Amen. Sometimes it feels like the worst thing for this video game franchise is the TT fans.

[Red Beard]

Kodiak_Steiner, on 08 November 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:

My take on this whole thing is that they will use today's technology coupled with the wealth of reference material on the history of this game and build it as close to the "real" thing as they can while maintaining the whole entertainment factor.

TODAY'S technology, with the HISTORY and LORE from the TT is exactly what I have in mind. The RULESET is another thing, IMO.

Mystwolf, on 08 November 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

we do not need to get derogetory or begin name calling about it.

Ummm...before we start with this whole, "keep it civil" thing, let's first check and make sure that there have been some sort of incivilties to chastise. Last I checked, everyone has remained respectful to everyone else on this thread and there have been no "name callings" yet. I think it is ok if you put that gun back in it's holster cowboy.

[Red Beard]

devil man, on 08 November 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

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.

You'll notice that the greater portion of the response here was spent on the "clause". In other words, they will do whatever they choose, and they will take whatever liberties they like. I applaud that. There is no reason why they have to adhere as tightly as possible. The game is about the MECHS, not the rules.

Quote

In other words, expect a hybrid of the CRPGs and the PnP game.

In your opinion. If this game has even a HINT of the TT games, other than the fact that it's a game about huge mechs in the BT storyline, it will drive away the casual base. They are walking a fine line with this part of the game, and I think that the answer that they gave was mostly to appease the fanbois so that nobody cries foul right out of the gates. They would not have felt the need to include the "clause" if they were not planning to deviate in large way.

[Creel]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

TODAY'S technology, with the HISTORY and LORE from the TT is exactly what I have in mind. The RULESET is another thing, IMO.

But Mech's don't make sense with today's technology. Given our existing IRL capabilities, and the capabilities that we expect to have in the near future Mechs are a really dumb idea. They're giant walking targets that are far too complex, expensive, and relatively fragile.

It only works if you follow the underlying assumptions that make it work.

[Halfinax]

I like how everyone keeps overlooking the quote directly from the official FAQs. The devs said they intend to stick to the TT game where it is feasible. In other words this argument is moot. Obvious areas where the TT rules won't fit they will redesign them to function in a Simulation type game play.

As far as the worst thing for the franchise being the "TT fans" you wouldn't have the franchise without us. It's an absurd and frankly rude statement. We realize that obviously turn based game play can't transfer to real time in all regards, and that obviously some rules will not translate from the TT game to the simulation, and personally I'm happy with the simple statement the devs have made. They will stick to the TT game as much as possible while keeping the game play interesting.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Mystwolf, on 08 November 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

while I understand some things cannot totally convert from TT to Sim. I also think saying nothing converts is just as wrong. I believe a lot can come over.

The big thing to remember is to keep it civil and even if you do not understand my PoV or the otherway around, we do not need to get derogetory or begin name calling about it.

The BattlePods seem to do so pretty well, from what I've heard.

Quote

The big thing to remember is to keep it civil and even if you do not understand my PoV or the otherway around, we do not need to get derogetory or begin name calling about it.

Savashri, Stravag, Surat (why do most clan epithets start with an "s"?).

[Odin]

I really don't see where the problem is.
We all want more or less the very same or at least similar things.
TT or real world physix/weaponry.

As I see it,
TT rules often try to translate real world behavior into a physical world that entirely exist in those fuzzy dice (TT).
There is no MECH! Only a ******* table top and some papers!
There's no pilot skill actually, only paper and the **** dice.

Now, Piranha wants to create Mechs!
Digital, simulated based on the TT, where it makes sense.
And translate the fiction and meaning into a new media.

TT Mechs are ENTIRELY in your heads.
MWO Mechs will be on our HDs coded and decoded into live on our monitors.
INPUT is entirely made by your-freakin-self + a little help from Piranhas interpretation of it all.

Much, much better - and by no means necessarily contradicting whats meant to be BT.




edit:

I think you will be a much better pilot - for real - than you ever where on TT.
Its hard hitting, almost instantly, death and destruction, no need to wait, until it is your turn.
Unforgiving real time combat

Perhaps it feels divergent, cos you all imagined it, in your head - now its happening in real time:
sound, color, movement - other players! as cunning and smart as you are.
You can't compare this thrilling experience to the TT, no way.
No matter what rule never.

Edited by Odin, 08 November 2011 - 12:13 PM.

[Riptor]

So... what is your point now odin? All i got from your post was a lots of capslock raging about... that the game is in real time?

The PC might be able to simulate piloting a mech better then the tabletop.. but then the tabletop game was made as a strategy game.. not as a simulation. Wich doesnt change the fact that you can take alot of the game statistics and aply it to the game. Heat scores, damage scores, range of the weapons, speed of the mechs etc.

Also what many people seem to forget and i want to throw in now is that we will have Pilot progression.

Thats right... you are not the pilot of the mech.. you PLAY the pilot of the mech. His skills and ability scores should make a huge part of how effective you are in combat, just like every other game with character progression out there. Ofcourse real player skill will also be needed, but like in WoT you can be godlike as a player but if your crew is only at 50% skill level.. well good luck hitting anything yet damaging it.

Because if everyone has pinpoint accuracy... then why do we need any RPG elements at all? Theres no character progression or RPG elements if everyone allways hits that little point in the middle of their crosshairs 100% of the time.

No character will be a sharpshooter at start or an expert on electronics.. so you can be sure that there will be an element of randomness to the accuracy of you fire. And if you look around the industry it will come down to accuracy decreasing when you move around vs standing still and carefull aiming.

Thats the reality of gaming for you

Edited by Riptor, 08 November 2011 - 12:56 PM.