475 replies to this topic

[Amechwarrior]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 04:41 AM, said:

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

I think we might be saying the same thing but wording/processing it differently. To me a Simulation game is a high fidelity recreation of another experience. Trying to definitively replicate a Battlemech cannot actually be done, you have no real thing to base it off of. But this does not mean I cannot try to simulate a fictional idea of one medium with another.

Lets say, I had a book, a fictional story with monsters, a hero, a prince that needs rescue and all that. It has always been a written work, but I am in charge of making a movie about it. I love this book, I want my movie to be like this book as much as possible. However, I have a different set of tools, the long, beautiful inner monologues in the book just do not translate well in a medium where the mantra is "Show, don't tell." I will have to change the work to fit the needs of cinema and my audience. I can do two things, one, I can say "Welp, this will not work in film, so lets just forget about it and I will make something up to take up the time, how about an action scene and some explosions. The audience loves seeing a great hero kick ****..." Or I could say "Welp, maybe I can take the ideas and emotional content of this monologue and show the hero preforming new acts that reinforce those ideals, or maybe have a bit of exposition by having him converse with a side kick. I can really show the audience why the hero is great" Which one of these courses of action will result in a better simulation of the original work?

If you would also choose the second course of action then we agree. Old ideas and concepts must be integrated into what the new medium works best with, but you do not throw out everything just because it does not fit. Like I said before, use the rulebook as a guide, not as a bible.

[gregsolidus]

This guy gets it.

[guardiandashi]

one factor that many of the "twitch/this is a sim" throw out everything and have the weapons hit exactly on my crosshair aiming point every time seem to forget IMO is that that is not true to the battletech universe either.

in the battletech universe battlemech targeting and firing is NOT like joe mechwarrior pointing his rifle at sam the opposing mechwarriors mech and firing. targeting is a colaborative effort between the mechwarrior (pilot) and the mechs targeting computer and systems.

there are in universe 3 models of targeting/firing
1 full manual this is seldom used because the average pilot is not fast enough to take full advantage of it. You likely would only be able to aim 1 weapon at a time this way.

2 hybrid targeting this is the standard model used the mechwarrior designates the target and the battle computer/targeting+ tracking computer attempts to hit the designated target in as close to real time as possible. the issue you run into is that at least sometimes what the computer registers as the designated target is the rock or tree (or building) that the crosshairs were over at the moment the trigger was hit.

3 full computer targeting (example from one of the warrior novels Dan allard used his setshot program to have the computer handle the shot vs morgan kell and his phantom mech ability. The computer kept telling him it was a bad idea because frankly humans are better at pattern recognition (in real time) than the computers are so the computer takes a longer time to "aim" but when it finally fires its shots are more likely to go exactly where they were aimed.

now per things the developers have said we have to throw in another layer. IE you are not piloting the mech for real you are controling your "avatar" the mechwarrior and when you say to fire you are actually teling him to tell the mechs system to fire. This is where the pilots "skills" come in IE how well does the avatar translate your requests into actual commands for the "mech"

if you look at it from that perspective there is a lot more "reality" in some of the cone model.

another solution would be to have an individual aimpoint for each weapon mounted on the mech each with its cone of probability for hits.

[MausGMR]

A lot of simulation games make good use of a cone model fire method, so personally I would be interested in seeing how that turned out also in a Mechwarrior game.

[Mal]

The Devs have said they're going to try and follow the TableTop rules as much as they can, but where those rules get awkward for MWO's usage, they'll branch off.. At this point, I trust that they'll make good decisions on how to tweak/replace the rules that are kinda awkward.

[Zyllos]

To someone that mentioned it earlier in the thread, this game is not a MMO. This is just a multiplayer game with some presistent elements to it. But, while I do agree that this game is not the TT version of the game, the TT is what we have to work with. And I am happy to hear that the devs are willing to try to stick with the TT as much as possible.

Edited by Zyllos, 08 November 2011 - 06:39 AM.

[RSF Angel]

guardiandashi, on 08 November 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

.

there are in universe 3 models of targeting/firing
1 full manual this is seldom used because the average pilot is not fast enough to take full advantage of it. You likely would only be able to aim 1 weapon at a time this way.

2 hybrid targeting this is the standard model used the mechwarrior designates the target and the battle computer/targeting+ tracking computer attempts to hit the designated target in as close to real time as possible. the issue you run into is that at least sometimes what the computer registers as the designated target is the rock or tree (or building) that the crosshairs were over at the moment the trigger was hit.

3 full computer targeting (example from one of the warrior novels Dan allard used his setshot program to have the computer handle the shot vs morgan kell and his phantom mech ability. The computer kept telling him it was a bad idea because frankly humans are better at pattern recognition (in real time) than the computers are so the computer takes a longer time to "aim" but when it finally fires its shots are more likely to go exactly where they were aimed.

now per things the developers have said we have to throw in another layer. IE you are not piloting the mech for real you are controling your "avatar" the mechwarrior and when you say to fire you are actually teling him to tell the mechs system to fire. This is where the pilots "skills" come in IE how well does the avatar translate your requests into actual commands for the "mech"

*Disclaimer: Pardon my ignorance- I know very little about MW/Battletech background, all i know is what I've experienced ingame in the few mechwarrior titles I've dabbled in. /disclaimer

AFAIK MW is unlike games like tony hawke- the control interface in universe is a HUD and a joystick with buttons- albeit they presumably get better displays than our 17+ inch monitors.


1:Why is the average pilot not fast enough? Are the mechs moving too fast? Do the weapons track slower manually ? Should the mechs be moving faster ingame to "show, don't tell"?

2: Hybrid aiming sounds a lot like a table top wargame scenario- choose a target, roll to hit- the chance. There would have to be some pretty hefty modifiers for 'aiming' or stationary for this to make sense in MWO-

for example, I sneak my light mech though the city and find an atlas firing off into the distance. I work my way around behind him and carefully line up a shot....

It would take a lot of explaining to tell a FPS/Starwars flight sim guy (me) why his futuristic giant robot can't hit what he is aiming directly at.

Edited by RSF_Angel, 08 November 2011 - 06:54 AM.

[TheForce]

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

This seems to be especially true of many of the mechanical aspects of the games, like targeting.

Hail honorable mechwarriors, and clan scum.

Let's talk about targeting...

In MW 2, 3, and 4, grouping 4 medium lasers together = same power as an AC20 because of pinpoint accuracy. An AC20 with ammo weighs 16 tons. With this tonnage i can get a lot of med lasers, heat sinks, armor, and have grouped weapons that do more damage than the most feared 3025 tech weapon. This makes AC20s useless compared to lasers.

IMO things like this changes the game from mechwarrior, a representation of battletech TT, to a "walking tank" game.

Edited by theforce, 08 November 2011 - 08:53 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

But alot of the modifiers that the TT game applies to account for movement, unequal terrain or what not that is proven by the random hit location...those issues are simulated already in the game, by the relative movements of the mechs.

[Hunter McGee]

I wasn't really going to add anything to this thread, but, then I continued to read, and most of you actually see the difficulties in this incarnation of the game universe.

I have played EVERY version of this game. Started with the Table Top game back in the 80's, moved to the pods, then started the computer simulations starting with the Crescent Hawks, and moving through the line up to Living Legends. I still play the table top RPG and turn based Battletech with miniatures on a regular basis to my wife's consternation.

We all have to understand that using a turn based model for this game would be just down right stupid. Most of us table toppers have played at least one or two of the PC simulations and we accept that difference.

All I want to see is for the Devs to stick to the cannon, and try as hard as possible to keep the rich flavor of the game universe in tact as much as possible. Hundreds of writers and developers have created a game universe like no other. Apparently they did something right, or none of us would be here right now. The story line and history are rich, full, and rewarding. It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it. That is my major complaint about MW4 Mercs, you can only modify your weapons loadout so much, well, Why? Take the HBK Hunchback... In the Table Top game, you can strip that AC-20 out and put nearly anything in there. That is a HUGE weapons bay mounted on the torso of a fairly hardy chassis. In fact there are close to a dozen different models of the HBK in the manuals with load outs ranging from missiles, to lasers to PPC's to Machine guns, then why in the heck did MW4 Mercs only allow you to put Ballistic weapons in there? Where the hell did that come from? Totally not in keeping with the B-Tech rules and history.

Also, technically, it is very difficult for your repair and technician crew to even attempt a weapons load out modification on an IS 'Mech. Some mods are easier than others but it still took days, if not weeks to perform, and even then it was questionable if it was even going to work. Now the Clan omni's were a different matter all together, they could be field modified in a matter of hours at the most, but once again in MW4, you could modify an omni or IS mech in the same amount of time. Having an Omni basically gave you no benefits at all.

Oh well, I'm done and kind of got of track here but gonna post anyway.

[Kenyon Burguess]

as long as the lore and mech skins are correct I'll be a happy player.

[Creel]

RSF_Angel, on 08 November 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

*Disclaimer: Pardon my ignorance- I know very little about MW/Battletech background, all i know is what I've experienced ingame in the few mechwarrior titles I've dabbled in. /disclaimer

AFAIK MW is unlike games like tony hawke- the control interface in universe is a HUD and a joystick with buttons- albeit they presumably get better displays than our 17+ inch monitors.


1:Why is the average pilot not fast enough? Are the mechs moving too fast? Do the weapons track slower manually ? Should the mechs be moving faster ingame to "show, don't tell"?

2: Hybrid aiming sounds a lot like a table top wargame scenario- choose a target, roll to hit- the chance. There would have to be some pretty hefty modifiers for 'aiming' or stationary for this to make sense in MWO-

for example, I sneak my light mech though the city and find an atlas firing off into the distance. I work my way around behind him and carefully line up a shot....

It would take a lot of explaining to tell a FPS/Starwars flight sim guy (me) why his futuristic giant robot can't hit what he is aiming directly at.

1. I wouldn't pick speed as a definitive limitation. There are a lot of variables in play, not least of which is movement of the mech being piloted. These things aren't on wheels. The motion of the mech causes all of the moving parts to be bouncing up and down and rattling to and fro within their housings, it's not what you'd call a stable firing platform. There are limits to how much movement can be adequately dampened while still allowing for sufficient range of motion to cover the firing arcs. When the pilot puts his reticle on a target, the computer is realigning the weapons as close to the point where he's aiming as the sporadic movement and limited capabilities allow. There's a lot of inertia built up by 50+ tons of metal slamming into the ground. Think about the shock that travels through your skeleton when your foot hits the ground heavily; The clothes that you're wearing shift, things in your pockets jiggle around; now imagine 2000 times as much kinetic energy involved. The pilot isn't aware of where any of his weapons are actually pointing, at any given time, because they'd have to be constantly in motion in their shock absorbing cradles. Without the aid of his fire control system a mech pilot is firing all but blind.

IRL our weapons are as accurate as the firing platform is stable. Tanks are on wheels, and have massive stabilization systems built into the turret in order to give us the accuracy that we have. planes have hard-mounted weapons that point straight ahead. MG turrets don't have that a tank turret has but still need to traverse through an arc, as a result they are terribly inaccurate.

2. yes, standing still and taking your time will result in a much more accurate shot...and your death.

Edited by Creel, 08 November 2011 - 07:27 AM.

[ice trey]

I'm only going to partly agree.

There are some things from the tabletop that just simply can't be easily brought into existence into real-time experiences. Pulse lasers are an example of this - How do you make a laser that makes it easier to hit a target, all the while hitting one location alone? How will you include Charge Attack damage at the same scale as the Battletech boardgame when you're relying on the engine to somehow understand who was the one that charged, and who was the one that WAS charged (Especially difficult if two 'mechs started playing chicken). How do you make Punching and Kicking attacks feel streamlined, How do you make use of your Hand Actuators to pick up and lift things, if not throw things... There are a wealth of things that you can and can't really do in a 1st person simulation game engine.

On the other hand, the Battletech universe and Battletech Tabletop game go hand in hand, and so long as this game calls itself a Battletech product, there should be effort put into making it as true to it as possible. Some things are a non-issue. We CAN go back to the MW3 Mechbay system quite easily, and it's not that hard to figure out, using balancing systems as they were shown in the Battletech Tabletop to help dissuade players from completely gutting and min-maxing their custom machines.

Other things, like the "Cone of Fire", I think is more something that the game needs badly after having played the atrocity that was Mechwarrior 4 multiplayer. That's not to say it would be like morrowind (Which I agree, was a lesson in frustration). Rather, I would hope it would be more like Counterstrike or Bloodlines, with Mech motive action taken (Stationary, Walking (up to 70% speed), Running (70%+ Speed) or Jumping/Falling) dictating the spread of said circle. Pinpoint accuracy leads to frustrating things like Jump Sniping absolutely dominating the battlefield, with absolutely no means to counter it. Likewise, while aiming at the legs or head is not a problem in itself, being able to reliably alpha strike from a distance and shear off a leg while running is just game-breaking in multiplayer and does little to promote variety in tactics or teamwork.

While I'll agree that a 100% Battletech simulator would be unlikely to make for a good game, a lions' share of the Tabletop's rules are already well thought out, and are perfectly suited to conversion into videogame format without much hastle.

On the other hand, I abhor the idea of distancing the franchise from the Battletech franchise. Mechwarrior has always existed as an extention of the Battletech universe, and from what I can tell, the more true to the canon system the PC Games are, the more popular they are, as well. Just look at how fondly people remember the Mechwarrior 2 series just as it was, and compare that to the popularity of the Mechwarrior 4 series prior to Mektek getting their hands on the game. If you do not like the Battletech way of doing things, there are other options. PC Gamer has already sung the praises of Hawken, and I think that should be what people who want Mechwarrior to be something it's not should invest into, instead, rather than try to usurp other players of a long-overdue true-to-the-original sequel. PC Gaming in general tends to attract fans of more complex systems, so none of this should be over anyone's heads. Besides, watered-down systems made for the casual layman are best left for console gaming, portable gaming, and iPhones, where the layman dominates.

Edited by ice trey, 08 November 2011 - 08:17 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

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

I'd rather have S.T.A.L.K.E.R. than COD.
And S.T.A.L.K.E.R. uses realistic ballistics.
Bullet drop is also done really well in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. just compare an AK-74M with that AS VAL (latter requires some practise to be any good).

Quote

Walking (up to 70% speed)

Closer to 66% speed, to be honest.

Quote

Running (100%+ Speed)

Only going to happen with active TSM, MASC or Supercharger (or a combination there-of).

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 08 November 2011 - 07:59 AM.

[Frantic Pryde]

The title of this thread is ridiculous. Mechwarrior has always been representation of the tabletop game. The name Mechwarrior comes from the original rpg that uses the tt system and puts more focus and detail on the individual Mechwarrior.

I do however, more or less agree with the OP...I just think the title is crazy

The devs said they are sticking to the cannon as much as possible and that cleary some things need to be tweaked because this is not a TT game, it's a video game.

And that's the end all right there. That is EXACTLY what makes a good Mechwarrior game for EVERYONE, the hardcore fan boys are happy with things being canonical and the people who just want a fun game will have just that. It really doesn't have to be one or the other, I promise

[Cake Bandit]

While it's pretty difficult to translate some things from dice rolls to virtual action, I don't see any reason as to why we shouldn't look to them for inspiration.

Neither the older titles or the table top should establish hard and fast rules for designing this new iteration, but they're some of the best things we have for figuring out where we want to go with it.

*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*

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

[Red Pins]

...Oh - the TT boys have probably done more than most to keep the popularity of MW alive than sitting back and reading interviews in gamer magazines. Granted, they're being a bit silly about their requests.

[Cake Bandit]

They're probably just not sure about the finer points of translating from medium to medium. What needs to happen is that we on the gaming end need to do a better job about making some of the more video game-y points of design clear in their requirements and impact on the way a game is played.

We as gamers need to really think about what they're asking and how it could best be translated into gameplay without making it something that could be potentially metagamed.

This is our medium, and the responsibility is on us to work with them.

[Korbyn McColl]

It's tough to say, really.

While it's definitely true that the MW video games broke away from many of the PnP rules, that was largely because they simply couldn't handle the complexity of them.

Should this game be closer to the PnP game or the CRPGs? That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd like to see it stay closer to the CRPGs in most regards, but there were some things that th PnP game had that would make excellent additions to this game. So I'd like to see the devs keep an open mind.

[Riptor]

Quote

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

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

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.