475 replies to this topic

[Creel]

McHawkeye,

You keep talking about realistic aiming, and suggesting that more accurate=more believable. One wonders how much experience you have with firearms/weapon systems. It is far easier to miss, than to hit. Especially with an unstable platform. I'll agree that the completely random TT hit tables are not a good solution. I do think that it is more in line with existing lore, and also more in line with existing physics and ballistic models to err on the side of scatter when dealling with 100,000lbs of stompy metal going 45kph attempting to line up 50 moving parts to within a 1" MOA at 1000 meters.

[Amechwarrior]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

Yes, I've played games with CoF. From my point of view, its a very frustrating method of solving issues. it certainly adds a challenge, but at what cost? I've stated before and will happily do so again, it's a simulation, at least in part, lets simulate as best we can.
Cof, in my eyes, is a short cut to solve issues that can probably be fixed with less affected means.

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

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.

The thing is, is that firing real weapons have a real cone of fire. Take my GAU-8 example, take firing a real gun as a person. I cannot find an actual link to the PDF that the public can see so here is a web version of FM3-22-9 This chapter covers how a soldier should be able to put 2 groups, of 3 rounds each within a 4cm circle at 25m. Figure 5-6 is clearly noted "Shot groups indicate no firer error." For an M-16, a properly trained man in the prone supported position has a cone of fire of 2cm at 25m. The standard is 4cm, we cannot all be perfect.

The thing is, you keep riding against this cone of fire concept, yet asking for a simulated realistic ballistics model. A properly simulated realisitic ballistics model, be it a man and rifle, plane and cannon, tank and main gun or just about every single projective firing device mankind has ever made has a limit to how accurate it is. Cone of fire exists in the real world, with real physics on real weapons regardless of where it is mounted or what system it is.

You may find cone of fire frustrating in FPS games. But that is a close analogue, dare I say, simulation, of how real world ballistics work. Some things are just outside of the pilot/soldier/mechwarriors hands.

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

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.

You forgot how I have mentioned many times, that heat is not a balance to overly accurate laser fire. If I can get the first shot and second to alpha your leg I am overheating, and you are dead. Yes, we are not all "out to win" all the time, but looking at the gaming populations trends in every game you can keep metrics on, this is the highest factor on how people play. In aggregate, we play to win, not to lose. You must look at us as a whole, we will have CoD Bros, TT fanatics, MPBT guilds, starcrafters, minecrafters all coming in to play. On average, all of of us will play to win and game balance must take that into account.

[T S Hawk]

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?

I think you are completely wrong. I have been playing the board game since 87. The only MW game I have played is MW4 Mercs. Mechwarrior video games are not a seperate branch of the BT Universe. The BT Universe has a deep and rich history and the mechwarrior games just enhanced it and were part of it down to the story lines. MWO will just further enhanced the game IMO and remain part of the universe however I do question one of the rumors on here about them not having the Fedrats and Liar and cheat commonwealth united in the year 3049 when the game starts. I mean if that is true are they getting permission to re-write some history or what? When Hansy and Melissa got married it was a huge thing because that marriage began the 4th Succession War so it will be interesting to see how that goes.

But I truly feel that MWO and BT will go hand in hand as one universe

[Kudzu]

Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

I really don't keep forgetting at all.

Then perhaps you should start acting like it.

Quote

Though I do think, perhaps, that "what makes Battletech Battletech" is incredibly subjective. And what I happen to value is probably different to you, and that's fine: I'm sure the Devs are finding amongst them selves that the game is the culmination of what everyone else thinks is important; that way, nothing should get overlooked.

Suggestions and whining that turn it away from nearly 30 years of established lore should probably be ignored.

Quote

Yes, I've played games with CoF. From my point of view, its a very frustrating method of solving issues. it certainly adds a challenge, but at what cost? I've stated before and will happily do so again, it's a simulation, at least in part, lets simulate as best we can.
Cof, in my eyes, is a short cut to solve issues that can probably be fixed with less affected means.

At the cost of making it feel more like Battletech? I'll pay that price gladly. Keep in mind of exactly what they are trying to simulate before saying that they won't be simulating it the best they can. Weapons in BT are not as accurate as what we have today-- they miss, they scatter, and COF is a great way to bring that feeling across to a new platform. Fights should take longer that a single hyper-accurate alpha-strike-- it should be a slugging match where teamwork and focus firing are rewarded rather than who can boat the most lasers and flush their coolant the first.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what system you use AC's will always lose out to energy weapons due to high weight and limited ammo. The problem with the Hunchback creeping up is what does he do when he's fired off his 5 shots for the AC20 - he's a slow target for the remaining mech's. When I played tabletop (for over 10 years) nearly everyone I knew chose the energy variants (preferably with Streak SRM's as back.up) We did months long RPG style campaign's and very few people ever used a stock model mech if at all possible because they just didn't work out in the game. 1v1 or2v2 deathmatch is different and can work out OK. If so many variants exist and if customisation is so popular, doesn't it suggest that something may be wrong?

[TheForce]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 10 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what system you use AC's will always lose out to energy weapons due to high weight and limited ammo.

Fair enough, but at least in the TT they had the advantage of doing 20 points of damage to one location. They've never had this advantage in the MW games because you could group lasers and get better results.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Kudzu, on 09 November 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

Suggestions and whining that turn it away from nearly 30 years of established lore should probably be ignored.

I disagree. I know all of the purists around here think that any proponents of deviation from the TT rules are ignorant fools who know nothing of BattleTech but the simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot of BattleTech lore, and a huge chunk of the TT rules, which just plain suck and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on back then let alone right now.

MWO is a perfect opportunity to right some of the wrongs. It's been a decade since we've gotten a game. As Eckman pointed in his "Dev Blog 0" no publisher gave two-***** about this franchise and that's why MW3015 got canned in favor of MWO.

Knowing that Piranha would have to be pretty negligent and unwise with their investors' money to just regurgitate another Mw3 or Mw4. Something has to give in this IP to keep it alive and marketable.

If all they care about is sating a few purists wonts and egos this franchise will slip into oblivion for another decade.

Now feel free to interpret all of that as negatively as y'all want

[Sartris]

I'll be happy with a hybrid of TT rules and logical compromises. Like the devs said they were going to do.

[wanderer]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 10 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what system you use AC's will always lose out to energy weapons due to high weight and limited ammo. The problem with the Hunchback creeping up is what does he do when he's fired off his 5 shots for the AC20 - he's a slow target for the remaining mech's. When I played tabletop (for over 10 years) nearly everyone I knew chose the energy variants (preferably with Streak SRM's as back.up) We did months long RPG style campaign's and very few people ever used a stock model mech if at all possible because they just didn't work out in the game. 1v1 or2v2 deathmatch is different and can work out OK. If so many variants exist and if customisation is so popular, doesn't it suggest that something may be wrong?

Funny you should say that. The original Solaris VII tabletop system worked on a much more sim-like system. Turns were 2.5 seconds instead of 10, and this meant some interesting things.The initial heat spike was 4x normal (though the heat scale was also spread out 4x, and cooling ability cycled every turn)- so firing even a single PPC could easily slow a 'Mech down or futz with it's targeting for a bit. Moreover, since most weapons didn't take the full 10 seconds to reload, you often could get multiple shots off- which with energy weapons could overwhelm the cooling system. Autocannons were wonderful there- firing a pair of AC/5's would barely strain your heat scale, but firing dual PPC's would ***** things up if you alphaed- you had to stagger your shots to allow the sinks to bleed off the massive heat load generated.It actually did wonders for the whole energy/non-energy balance issue. Working the weapons systems like that for MWO would also help keep alpha-strike babies from being a problem, too.

[Max Liao]

Cavadus, on 10 November 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

I disagree. I know all of the purists around here think that any proponents of deviation from the TT rules are ignorant fools who know nothing of BattleTech but the simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot of BattleTech lore, and a huge chunk of the TT rules, which just plain suck and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on back then let alone right now.

Yes, it's called Clan/3050 tech, everything before then was pure gold.

[Twilight]

Amechwarrior, on 09 November 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

The thing is, is that firing real weapons have a real cone of fire. Take my GAU-8 example, take firing a real gun as a person. I cannot find an actual link to the PDF that the public can see so here is a web version of FM3-22-9 This chapter covers how a soldier should be able to put 2 groups, of 3 rounds each within a 4cm circle at 25m. Figure 5-6 is clearly noted "Shot groups indicate no firer error." For an M-16, a properly trained man in the prone supported position has a cone of fire of 2cm at 25m. The standard is 4cm, we cannot all be perfect.

The thing is, you keep riding against this cone of fire concept, yet asking for a simulated realistic ballistics model. A properly simulated realisitic ballistics model, be it a man and rifle, plane and cannon, tank and main gun or just about every single projective firing device mankind has ever made has a limit to how accurate it is. Cone of fire exists in the real world, with real physics on real weapons regardless of where it is mounted or what system it is.

You may find cone of fire frustrating in FPS games. But that is a close analogue, dare I say, simulation, of how real world ballistics work. Some things are just outside of the pilot/soldier/mechwarriors hands.




You forgot how I have mentioned many times, that heat is not a balance to overly accurate laser fire. If I can get the first shot and second to alpha your leg I am overheating, and you are dead. Yes, we are not all "out to win" all the time, but looking at the gaming populations trends in every game you can keep metrics on, this is the highest factor on how people play. In aggregate, we play to win, not to lose. You must look at us as a whole, we will have CoD Bros, TT fanatics, MPBT guilds, starcrafters, minecrafters all coming in to play. On average, all of of us will play to win and game balance must take that into account.

Dude. Did you just compare a 30mm aircraft mounted cannon to an M-16 at CQB ranges?

You Did, didn't you?

A "cone of fire" mentality is only accurate if you're doing a "spray and pray" situation, as pinpoint accuracy while firing an automatic weapon is neigh impossible. An M-16A1 Assault rifle, on Semi-Auto, with an good site picture, however, at 25m, should have minimal ballistic drop, and with target discipline and accurate sighting, should put a shot right where you're aiming at.

Comparing that to the HUD system of the A-10 Warthog, which is coming in around 2K to 3K at around 400+ miles per hour, at a 40-50 degree AoA and spraying 2100 Rounds a Minute of one of the most powerful tankbusting autocannons in the world today is utterly silly.

In addition, the GAU-8 is a fixed autocannon, meaning it does not traverse unless the plane's nose goes with it. Compare this to the ground equivalent, the Bushmaster series cannon, and the mount and stabilization is much different.

You're comparing apples, oranges, and atomic bombs here.

Edited by Twilight, 11 November 2011 - 07:09 AM.

[Xhaleon]

wanderer, on 11 November 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:

just read the post

On the other hand, there are canon mechs that are supposed to be able to fire PPCs wily nilly (not even talking about the Hellstar here), so the limits here are contrary to what they can do.

Ahem, a wee bit of copypaste here from the "Targeting without cone of fire." thread in Suggestions.

I understand that anti-CoF people want the game to hinge on displays of skill rather than the computer's whim, but CoF can introduce different kinds of skill instead. The game wouldn't let you reliably hit targets far away as dictated by the canon weapon ranges, therefore the skill here is getting into range and making those shots count, where the cone is so small that it is practically pinpoint accurate. You want a game more about skill at controlling your shooting, I want a game more focused on maneuvering into position and planned ambushes to compensate for inaccuracy that you have no control over.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

And customization isn't? (if it's not in Total Warfare it's not Tournament)

Total Warfare and TechManual are both tournament legal, afaik.
Advanced and Experimental rules are in TacOps/StratOps/IntOps.

Quote

You are simply going to have to get it through your bean. 90 percent of the people that will play this game DO NOT CARE about the BT rule set. It worked for the TT game and that is all. Let it go.

And yet, the FAQ states that they'll try to follow the TT was close as possible for the type of game.

Quote

Re: aiming mech weapons
This game isnt about a man with a gun as we all know, so lets try not to thing about targetting in that manner. you arnt looking down the barrle of a gun pointing at what you want to hit. weapons are mounted in the body of the mech and are largely fixed mounts pointing forward both arms may be mounting weapons or be replaced buy them. You are not the mech, it dosnt move to your will more than to keep it upright and balenced. All the weapons cant be brought together with pinpoint acuracy and still be simulating battlemech combat.

AT1:B has a pretty good solution to that:
Arm-mounted weapons can be pointed in various direction allowed by the arm actuators.
Non-arm-mounted weapons only point in one direction, with little to no aiming unless you have a targeting computer installed (which takes up tonnage and crits).

Quote

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.

Deus Ex?
Or is 2000 not "current" enough?

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. 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.

We're talking about bullets that go at least Mach 2, from what I can remember, with some weapons peaking as high as Mach 5+ or possibly even Mach 8. And at relatively short ranges too.
How much bullet drop would you have at say... Mach 6 muzzle velocity and a target some 500m away? Bullet weight being 125kg, unknown ballistic coefficiency.

Quote

also in the later books mechs wern't used as otefn because of the disarment treaty signed after the jihad event. something else to think about.

Only if you disregard that Akuma in the gain silo.
The great houses disarmed in name only.

Quote

Aye. The game is set to begin in 3049, right as the Clans begin their invasions (though no one really knows who or what they are till 3050, I think).

Heck, some even initially thought they were aliens.

Quote

if it's all just city fights, how long until people are bored senceless and go to play other games?)

Imo, close-quarters makes for much more interresting fights.
My favourite Solaris arena is, with no surprise, Ishiyama.
Also, 'Mechs can enter/exit buildings (depending on the building), jump ontop of them (with jump jets) etc.

Quote

however I do question one of the rumors on here about them not having the Fedrats and Liar and cheat commonwealth united in the year 3049 when the game starts

Technically, they're not united in 3049.
They become the FedCom in 3055 with the ascension of Victor Steiner-Davion to the position of Archon-Prince. It may have existed as a single nation in practice by 3049, officially, it wasn't.

Quote

A "cone of fire" mentality is only accurate if you're doing a "spray and pray" situation, as pinpoint accuracy while firing an automatic weapon is neigh impossible.

A trained soldier can put two bullets at the exact same place with an AN-94, though.

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 11 November 2011 - 07:50 AM.

[KingCobra]

I agree to the original post in this thread but as a game maker you try to make as many fans happy as you can that does not border on the insane.So why not make them all happy by taking some aspects of Battletech,the PC games series all games MW2&expansions.MW3&expansions,MW4&expansions.,xbox Mechassault&MA2,and some MechCommander&MC2 aspects role them all into one and say hey we have a winner.I would love to play all those campaigns again online in a new game or even rewritten as quests.

[Red Beard]

Kudzu, on 09 November 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

Weapons in BT are not as accurate as what we have today-- they miss, they scatter

Oh yeah, thats sounds like the makings of a REALLY FUN game. Missing all the time and scatter shotting a bunch. Cmon. Burn the TT rules and start over. The devs also remind us that "this aint your daddy's MW". Just stop with all of this TT rules BS. Only 1-5 percent of the player base even cares. Go paint a miniature or whatever else it is that you do. All of these TT suggestions will outright RUIN this MW game.

Quote

COF is a great way to bring that feeling across to a new platform.

No, no it isn't.

Edited by Red Beard, 11 November 2011 - 07:56 AM.

[Paladin1]

Cavadus, on 10 November 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

I disagree. I know all of the purists around here think that any proponents of deviation from the TT rules are ignorant fools who know nothing of BattleTech but the simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot of BattleTech lore, and a huge chunk of the TT rules, which just plain suck and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on back then let alone right now.

You keep saying that the published rules for Battletech suck, yet you never point out what you're complaining about specifically. Could it be that you really don't know the rules that well and would get your *** handed too you by those of us who do?

So here's your chance to shine bub. What rule, specifically, do you think "sucks". Book and page number, if you please. Otherwise, shut the **** up about things you never bothered to even read.

[Paladin1]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 07:55 AM, said:

Oh yeah, thats sounds like the makings of a REALLY FUN game. Missing all the time and scatter shotting a bunch. Cmon. Burn the TT rules and start over. The devs also remind us that "this aint your daddy's MW". Just stop with all of this TT rules BS. Only 1-5 percent of the player base even cares. Go paint a miniature or whatever else it is that you do. All of these TT suggestions will outright RUIN this MW game.

And yet you're still here. The game you want is Hawken, troll. Those Battletech players who are holding to the real rules are those who were playing the game before you were even a gleam in your daddy's eye. Don't like the universe and it's rules? Hit the door.

[Red Beard]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 11 November 2011 - 07:49 AM, said:

And yet, the FAQ states that they'll try to follow the TT was close as possible for the type of game.

Cute post.

You obviously failed to read what I posted about that FAQ. Should you choose to read the ENTIRE answer, and not just the portion that makes the fanbois happy, you would notice that they spend MORE words explaining that they will take what liberties they choose to make the game work. To create a truly mass market game, they will have no choice but to leave behind the greater portion of the TT rules and physics laws of the old ruleset. This new game cannot function under MOST of the TT rules. It would, without a doubt become a laughing stock. Imagine somebody new to MW plays this game and spends ten minutes trying to hit a target and misses each time. They would shut it down and remove the F2P game from their hard drive. I know I would.

I have faith that the devs will not be ******** the fans over by trying to make this another BT TT clone with a monitor and keyboard. A WHOLE NEW MW EXPERIENCE awaits. Hopefully free of the TT mess.

[Red Beard]

Paladin1, on 11 November 2011 - 08:00 AM, said:

You keep saying that the published rules for Battletech suck, yet you never point out what you're complaining about specifically. Could it be that you really don't know the rules that well and would get your *** handed too you by those of us who do?

So here's your chance to shine bub. What rule, specifically, do you think "sucks". Book and page number, if you please. Otherwise, shut the **** up about things you never bothered to even read.

What you post doesn't really make sense. The TT rules are meant for TT games. He is simply trying to get the fanboi base to understand that those rules do not carry over to a VIDEO GAME for shmit. He doesn't need to point out any one portion just to prove something to anyone, bub.

[Paladin1]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

Cute post.

You obviously failed to read what I posted about that FAQ. Should you choose to read the ENTIRE answer, and not just the portion that makes the fanbois happy, you would notice that they spend MORE words explaining that they will take what liberties they choose to make the game work. To create a truly mass market game, they will have no choice but to leave behind the greater portion of the TT rules and physics laws of the old ruleset. This new game cannot function under MOST of the TT rules. It would, without a doubt become a laughing stock. Imagine somebody new to MW plays this game and spends ten minutes trying to hit a target and misses each time. They would shut it down and remove the F2P game from their hard drive. I know I would.

I have faith that the devs will not be ******** the fans over by trying to make this another BT TT clone with a monitor and keyboard. A WHOLE NEW MW EXPERIENCE awaits. Hopefully free of the TT mess.

I'll make you the same deal that I made Cavadus. What rule(s) do you think will not function in MWO? Book and Page number please. If you're going to complain about something, be specific. Otherwise you're just a smart-assed troll.