Mechwarrior games are not a representation of the table top...
#261
Posted 09 November 2011 - 02:59 PM
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.
#262
Posted 09 November 2011 - 03:17 PM
Mchawkeye, on 09 November 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:
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:
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:
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.
#263
Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:28 PM
Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 02:49 AM, said:
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
#264
Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:36 PM
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
Suggestions and whining that turn it away from nearly 30 years of established lore should probably be ignored.
Quote
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.
#265
Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:48 PM
#266
Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:58 PM
Nik Van Rhijn, on 10 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:
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.
#267
Posted 10 November 2011 - 05:01 PM
Kudzu, on 09 November 2011 - 04:36 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.
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
#268
Posted 10 November 2011 - 06:45 PM
#269
Posted 11 November 2011 - 06:53 AM
Nik Van Rhijn, on 10 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:
#270
Posted 11 November 2011 - 06:59 AM
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.
#271
Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:02 AM
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.
#272
Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:41 AM
wanderer, on 11 November 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:
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.
#273
Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:49 AM
Quote
Total Warfare and TechManual are both tournament legal, afaik.
Advanced and Experimental rules are in TacOps/StratOps/IntOps.
Quote
And yet, the FAQ states that they'll try to follow the TT was close as possible for the type of game.
Quote
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
Deus Ex?
Or is 2000 not "current" enough?
Quote
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
The great houses disarmed in name only.
Quote
Heck, some even initially thought they were aliens.
Quote
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
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 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.
#274
Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:52 AM
#275
Posted 11 November 2011 - 07:55 AM
Kudzu, on 09 November 2011 - 04:36 PM, 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.
Quote
No, no it isn't.
Edited by Red Beard, 11 November 2011 - 07:56 AM.
#276
Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:00 AM
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.
#277
Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:03 AM
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.
#278
Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:05 AM
Alizabeth Aijou, on 11 November 2011 - 07:49 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.
#279
Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:07 AM
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.
#280
Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:09 AM
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.
7 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users