475 replies to this topic

[Aaron DeChavilier]

I've played all incarnations of MechWarrior games and love the TT. However, I sure hope they dont transfer over all the TT stuff...then clans would indeed be godly! ()
I do however take exception to parties that believe its an all-or-nothing affair.

Is targeting in the TT dumb in a video game? you betcha, move on.
is the mechlab lame in MW4? you betcha, move on.

Neither side is perfect, but I believe one must use the TT at least as a large superstructure to approaching anything Battletech.
Also, Riptor nails it.

[Spoon]

Quote

is the mechlab lame in MW4? you betcha, move on.

What's all this hate about anyway? I liked the mechlab in MW4. **** at least made sense. Unlike say, mech commander in which you could stuff a single mech completely full of LRM's

[Stormwolf]

Spoon, on 08 November 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

What's all this hate about anyway? I liked the mechlab in MW4. **** at least made sense. Unlike say, mech commander in which you could stuff a single mech completely full of LRM's

A question, are you familiar with the MW2 mechlab?

[wanderer]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

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.

What a sim fails to do directly in some cases isn't the sim's fault, but we can put things into the sim to compensate. 'Mechs are more mobile and flexible than any modern game will be able to directly do 1:1- but we can put things like cone-of-fire in to show that. Cones should take both target and firing unit's movement into account for that- if you drop your gunsights on something moving at top speed for a Locust, the accuracy should be lower than putting that same gun to work on an Atlas. Mechs that overheat should have jiggle or larger "cones" (as the myomers in the targeting systems start to stutter and electronics lose efficiency). We can't accurately simulate the ECM that 'Mechs have in complex terms, but again- we can put that into the targeting system to simulate it. A center-of-mass shot should hit...but pinpoint accuracy isn't a fair simulation of what an "actual" Battletech fight would be like.

(And amusingly enough, there are actual TT rules for "glancing hits", if they wanted to go that route. Just saying.)

[Mchawkeye]

But the locust is physically smaller in the computer. And faster. It'll already be harder to hit than an atlas, you won't need a cone of fire to replicate that, surely?

As far as PLAYING the pilot rather than BEING the pilot...well that's the point if a SIMULATION isn't it? Do you think pilots on flight training think they are prentending to be pilots when in a simulator? I thought the point of this whole thing was to be the pilot in a mech. Not pretend.

Despite that last sentance, I do know this is all make believe.

Maybe.

[guardiandashi]

the big difference between the tabletop/mw 2/3 customization system is that no mech location is spontaniously locked to only being able to fit a certain size/type of weapon in

example the base locations on a mech sheet Head 6 slots (1 available) torsos and arms 12 slots, legs 6 slots (2 available)
with the center torso having 6 slots of engine and 4 of gyro (2 available) and side torsos with 12 slots available by default

then as you add equipment it weighs a certain amount, and takes up a number of slots

example small laser 0.5 ton 1 slot medium laser 1 ton 1 slot innersphere large laser (or er large laser) 5 tons 2 slots, ac 20 a whopping 14 tons 10 slots, and each ton of ammo for it is 1 slot for 5 shots

so you get a mech like the victor VTR-9B just as an example
80 tons
internal (std) 8 tons no crits
engine pitban (brand doesn't matter just flavor) 320 (rating) 22.5 tons 6 crits CT
heat sinks 15 single 5 tons
gyro 4 tons 4 crits
cockpit 3 tons 1 crit, plus 2 crits life support, and 2 crits sensors (all in the head)
armor std 184 points @ 16points/ton 11.5 tons no crits
location internal armor
head 3 9
center torso 25 30/15 (front/rear)
R/L torso 17 20/10
R/L arm 13 15
R/L Leg 17 20

weapons and ammo
ac 20 RA 10 cr 14 tons
ammo AC20 RT 3 cr 3 tons (15 shots total)
medium laser LA 1 cr 1 ton
medium laser LA 1 cr 1 ton
SRM 4 LT 1 cr 2 tons
ammo srm4 LT 1 cr 1 ton (25 shots)
jump jets 2 CT 2 cr 2 tons
Jump jet RL 1 cr 1 ton
jump jet LL 1 cr 1 ton

http://users.anet.co.../bm-victor.html

it would then have a record sheet indicating where all the componants are that can be hit
equipment like advanced internal str (endosteel) takes up additional crit slots for reduiced weight
xl engines for example innersphere xl engines take 3 additional crits Right and left torso
clan xl engines only take 2 additional crits
an xl engine cuts the engine weight in half (rounded up to the nearestr 0.5 ton) so in the previous victor example it would drop the engine weight to 11.5 tons freeing up 11 tons


the big change in mw4 is it would say (for instance) that the victor has a large ballistic mount in the right arm, a 2 slot energy mount in the left arm and a 1 slot missile mount in the left torso

which is fine as far as it goes... but what if I want to pull the ac20 and mount 2 ppc's in its place in the tabletop you could do it, but it would be a bit of a pain, in mw4 nope you can't but you can mount a bunch of machine guns

Edited by guardiandashi, 08 November 2011 - 01:54 PM.

[Mchawkeye]

And your point is...?

[Creel]

Lack of pinpoint accuracy is a hardware/software limitation integral to the basic mechanics. That's why pinpoint accuracy is so game breaking. The entire system was designed on the premise that aimed shots are extremely difficult due to the technological limitations of the hardware. You can put your targeting reticle wherever you like, and the hardware/software will attempt to align the selected weapon as closely to that point as it is able. Taking away the scatter makes mechs extremely squishy, allows you to boat up and one-shot even the most survivable of mechs.

With that out there, I'll agree that a completely randomized hit table as exists in the TT rules isn't practical for the video game. I do think that some scatter and unreliability in the targeting model is vital to preserve the spirit of the game. To reflect this, I'm in favor of a mixture of a 'cone of fire' implementation and noticeable traversal/alignment times.

[wanderer]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

But the locust is physically smaller in the computer. And faster. It'll already be harder to hit than an atlas, you won't need a cone of fire to replicate that, surely?

Yes, you will. I haven't seen a single game yet that allows me to pilot a Battlemech to the point of being able to jink, dodge, or maneuver like the tabletop game. When they develop actual neural linkages for Battletech sims, I'll talk.

MW4 gives you a perfect idea of how "easy" it is to hit a small target without factoring in the "reality" of how it should work if it was an accurate simulation of what the original game intended with the pen-and-paper version. That is, it's trivial. 'Mechs also don't move at remotely the "speed" they would if it was a 1:1 representation, making it even easier. If they did, we'd hardly be worrying in most cases about being able to pinpoint-shot anything at all. We'd have trouble keeping many things on the screen to begin with! So BT sims generally "slow" things up a bit to compensate.

[Amechwarrior]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

But the locust is physically smaller in the computer. And faster. It'll already be harder to hit than an atlas, you won't need a cone of fire to replicate that, surely?

As far as PLAYING the pilot rather than BEING the pilot...well that's the point if a SIMULATION isn't it? Do you think pilots on flight training think they are prentending to be pilots when in a simulator? I thought the point of this whole thing was to be the pilot in a mech. Not pretend.

Despite that last sentance, I do know this is all make believe.

Maybe.

Yes, except that the precedent set by the TT rules, fiction et al. is that even if you had a 0/0 pilot like Morgan Kell or Kai or whoever if they took their 'mechs - standing still, took their lasers, fired at a enemy 'mech - also standing still at close range, they would NOT get pin point accuracy, they have the same fuzzy dice chance of hitting the head or CT as any other green pilot. Yes, they can take the time to make a called shot, the kinds of shots that would be impossible to a green or regular pilot, but it comes at a cost of time, focus and vulnerability.

All of the fiction, all of the canon rules just do not give 'mechs weapons accurate fire. This seems absurd to real life where a modern battle tank can peg a target at more then a mile away. The various canon sources more or less show us that a 'mechs systems are wildly inaccurate in comparison to any real world analog. This kind of gross inaccuracy is part of Battletech as much as the Atlas. The better pilots know how to work with their chosen 'mechs systems, they know that maybe the right arms weapons drift a little east off center, the pilots have to deal with the inherent inadequacies of the targeting systems trying to keep 5 different barrels pointing at the same spot 500 meters off while trudging its way through small trees and buildings at combat speed. The pilots themselves do not get accurate fire out of the best of Battlemechs and that is something the developers should try to give us, the same experience the fictional pilots have. A simulation.

[guardiandashi]

my point had to do with the fact that the mw 4 hardpoint system while it had some ... interesting aspects dumbed the customization system down to the point that it was broken, plus it made a number of "official" designs impossible to make

plus being able to dump a full array of weapons into 1 specific spot on the mech (nova prime) is one of the worst offenders here effectively gives you a targeting computer in location target mode for "free"

edit spelling

Edited by guardiandashi, 08 November 2011 - 02:11 PM.

[Creel]

On a completely non-helpful note...

every time I see this thread something in my head immediately responds, "Yes, they are!".

[gregsolidus]

Spoon, on 08 November 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

What's all this hate about anyway? I liked the mechlab in MW4. **** at least made sense. Unlike say, mech commander in which you could stuff a single mech completely full of LRM's

People hate it because it basically shoehorned mechs into roles and didn't allow for any of the advanced modifications found in MW3.It just didn't give you enough choice.

[Korbyn McColl]

red beard, on 08 November 2011 - 11:41 AM, said:

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.




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.

Err...not to pick a nit...but I'm just quoting the FAQ. You're the one whose under the impression that the words "adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules" means that they are going to toss out whatever rules they want. I've stated before I want the game to play more like NM95. I'm simply telling you what the devs have told us.

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

But the locust is physically smaller in the computer. And faster. It'll already be harder to hit than an atlas, you won't need a cone of fire to replicate that, surely?

As far as PLAYING the pilot rather than BEING the pilot...well that's the point if a SIMULATION isn't it? Do you think pilots on flight training think they are prentending to be pilots when in a simulator? I thought the point of this whole thing was to be the pilot in a mech. Not pretend.

Despite that last sentance, I do know this is all make believe.

Maybe.

In regards to "playing the pilot", the exact answer from the devs was:

Q. Will MechWarrior® Online™ have persistent character content such as leveling or upgrades?

A. Yes. One of the customizations in MechWarrior® Onine™ is to train your pilot to suit your play style. Pilots will bring their efficiencies to whatever BattleMech® they get in.


"...train your pilot..." That leads me to believe that we will have character skills and possibly talents. I could be wrong. Do I want them? Yes. I'd love a system where you could decrease the time it takes for your missiles to lock because you have high weapons skills, or where you had a decreased chance to be knocked off your feet due to high pilot skills. But I won't complain if they don't implement those things. I just think they'd be cool.

Creel, on 08 November 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

On a completely non-helpful note...

every time I see this thread something in my head immediately responds, "Yes, they are!".

AMEN.

I wonder just how many people who are complaining about PnP (not TT, folks...PnP...get with the proper jargon. It's "Pencil and Paper") BattleTech not being a good system for MechWarrior. I've played PnP BT since 1987, I think? MW2 did a pretty **** good job of replicating its rules for a computer game of its time. MW3 did a better job. MW4 did an EVEN better job, with the mechlab being much closer to what was actually permitted in old school PnP BT. Every incarnation of MW has made it more and more like the PnP game. It makes me wonder if those complaining about the PnP game REALLY played it extensively? Or just sat through a couple of game sessions and thought they understood it.

[Amechwarrior]

guardiandashi, on 08 November 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

my point had to do with the fact that the mw 4 hardpoint system while it had some ... interesting aspects dumbed the customization system down to the point that it was broken, plus it made a number of "official" designs impossible to make

plus being able to dump a full array of weapons into 1 specific spot on the mech (nova prime) is one of the worst offenders here effectively gives you a targeting computer in location target mode for "free"

edit spelling

The MW4 developers had a huge reason for doing this. They hated seeing LRM20s come out of that Victors arm, or gauss rifles firing out of a Mad Dogs torso missile bay. It made the graphical look of the 'mech match what is inside, something you could never assume in previous games. The other option, was to have the open customization and then have different parts for each and every 'mech. At the time, they deemed this impractical. You would have to make 3 or 4 versions of every single 'mech segment to the point where a Victor no longer looks like a Victor anymore. Yes, omnimechs work this way in canon, but then nobody would use non-omnis and the Clans would gain an even bigger advantage in league play etc. If you had two 70 ton 'mechs, one Clan, one Inner Sphere and all the parts are interchangeable, then why would anyone use the structurally inferior IS model with worse FF Armor, XL engines and internal structure. If all 'mechs were blank slates you would see less variety on the multiplayer field, and that makes things dull.

They did it because when you see the model of a Catapult on your screen you could assume that those big missile pods carried missiles. Yea, that is sad that you cannot make the CPLT-K2 with 2 PPCs, but you know what they have you other 'mechs in the same weight range that could carry 2 PPCs and jump. This ensures all the different 'mechs they put hard work into making get used. The hardpoint system, while not perfect, did also prevent MW2/3 style boating where every 'mech could become the ERLL boat or might as well be a walking LRM300. Look at how quickly people turned to boating, imagine how much worse it could have been if they allowed a open MW2/3 style customization system.

I agree it was heavily simplified and as a MW2/3/TT player it sill irks me. But I think they were justified by both graphical limitations, battlefield variety and gameplay balance.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Things will never work exactly like TT in a sim. That's a given. However the TT results are the benchmark for what is battletech. Expecting radically different results just because its a sim is only going to anger the core audience of the game.

[TheForce]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

But the locust is physically smaller in the computer. And faster. It'll already be harder to hit than an atlas, you won't need a cone of fire to replicate that, surely?

What are we simulating? Is it a "walking tank" simulator that's realistic (as in our world realistic), or a "MechWarrior" simulator that is realistic in the Battletech universe?

You need something other than group fire and pinpoint accuracy to simulate the Battletech universe, because in that universe 4 grouped medium lasers were NOT as powerful as an AC20.

[CG Anastasius Focht]

I started playing the TT version in the 80's. Still have some plastech and lead figures along with hex boards and manuals.

Obviously a dice based hit location model wont translate to a computer game where you have direct aim.

It sounds to me like the devs will keep what they can and tweak what must be tweaked in order to translate the experience from one medium to another.

Im sure just about everyone will be happy with the result

[TheRulesLawyer]

theforce, on 08 November 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

You need something other than group fire and pinpoint accuracy to simulate the Battletech universe, because in that universe 4 grouped medium lasers were NOT as powerful as an AC20.

In fact any weapon that does 12 or more points of damage pays a 25% premium in BV. Its going to be an uphill battle against the folks who want mw4/mw3 with better graphics.

[Odin]

Riptor, on 08 November 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

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

Exactly my point.
Pilot skill + simulated skill = the experience.
Its' OK.

The board game is happening in your head, entirely + the dice.
That means NOTHING happens, its imagined, this time its "real", in the sense of a simulation .

BTW, its the nice text editor - I like that,
capslock rage is for the kids.


edit:

Most or some of this topic is a struggle about worlds, not their meaning.
TT rules won't be translated 1:1 into this, cos its not necessary. The simulator takes care of this.
The underlying basement of the sim will have its roots also from the TT, but not entirely.
The out put, the experience is a synergy , something with its own "live" and not completely predictable, if we are lucky.
MWO (entirely capslock), starting from TT will take battletech/Mechwarfare further, an ascension, it'll be not more but better.

Edited by Odin, 08 November 2011 - 03:45 PM.