475 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

Paladin1, on 11 November 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:

Seriously, if you think I'm trolling because I called out a troll for being what he is, then you've got a serious problem.

I really cannot believe you snapped at Cobra for trying to be decent. Wow. For the record, I am letting it go. Right....NOW.

Edited by Red Beard, 11 November 2011 - 08:45 AM.

[Paladin1]

Seriously RB, I held on through the dark days after FASA closed up shop and went under. Do you think that I'm going to just up and quit because you accused me of being a troll? You don't even hold a candle to some of the real trolls that used to inhabit the flame boards over on the main site. Camille would skin you alive.

[Paladin1]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

I really cannot believe you snapped at Cobra for trying to be decent. Wow. For the record, I am letting it go. Right....NOW.

If you think that was snapping at someone I'd hate to see what you think a real argument consists of.

[Kalunta]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 08:30 AM, said:

Haha...what is that, nerd-speak? You mean it is cheaper to make things "almost" like reality. Nice try Special K.

Stop being so defensive. I used to be in audio research and in a perceptual comparisons physical models of an audio sound --- the onset being the most complex --- could be approximated stochastically to perceptible levels of detail with much less computation.

[Red Beard]

Kalunta, on 11 November 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Stop being so defensive. I used to be in audio research and in a perceptual comparisons physical models of an audio sound --- the onset being the most complex --- could be approximated stochastically to perceptible levels of detail with much less computation.

Gotcha.

[Kalunta]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that ray-tracing every shot from every weapon from every mech and applying a complete physical model would result in nothing more than a whole lot of computation and difficult code while producing nothing too much different than a statistically approximated solution requiring much less computation. I don't even really think that a 100% true physical model would be doable in a MP online game --- leave that for engineers testing real-world stuff. This is a game and as long as it is perceptually good should be enough for us all to be happy.

[T S Hawk]

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

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.

So what you don't like the TT version but only play the PC or Console versions of MW? are you that much of a computer nerd living in the basement or attic of your parents house that you can't go out and make friends to actually play the TT version? Why do you say the TT is a mess or did I misread that part in the quote that I took from you? I admit that I enjoyed playing MW4 want to download it for free and play it with the expansion packs myself from mektek but These PC games should follow the rules or if not the rules at least the HISTORY of the story line as well. Yes you are the one who defeats Katherine Steiner even though its Victor who gets the credit in the game. Mind you in the story he is the one who actually defeats her. Maybe MW4 would have been better IMO if at the end you get a radio call saying stay out of this fight its between her and I and watch him just defeat her. IDK the game is about having fun.. and I have fun when I play the TT or even now playing Megamek. YEs I can't wait for this game to come out and see how it goes

But if all what you want to do is complain and troll these boards then I am going to have to agree with Paladin1 and just hit the door ok.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

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

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.
ed as a single nation in practice by 3049, officially, it wasn't.

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

With regard to projectile speed - Mach 2 is possibly achievable - Mach 6 to 8 - no way - 1) Air compression in the barrel would prevent anything like this 2) the projectile would melt at anythig like these speeds -even special titanium alloys nearly melt at approx Mach 4 at an altitude of 20+ miles.
As for the AN-94 - at what range?

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 11 November 2011 - 09:19 AM.

[Paladin1]

Kalunta, on 11 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:

I guess what I'm trying to say is that ray-tracing every shot from every weapon from every mech and applying a complete physical model would result in nothing more than a whole lot of computation and difficult code while producing nothing too much different than a statistically approximated solution requiring much less computation. I don't even really think that a 100% true physical model would be doable in a MP online game --- leave that for engineers testing real-world stuff. This is a game and as long as it is perceptually good should be enough for us all to be happy.

I think you may be over analyzing this a bit. Yes, building a 100% true to physics physical model would be extremely difficult and result in something that would bog down even the best graphics engines, but you don't have to do that.

Here's where I think that the rules in Total Warfare would serve as an admirable base for MWO, because you could easily build a damage scale framework from the rules for Internal Structure and Armor. You don't have to know how many millimeters of armor a large laser would penetrate, for example, as we already know that a single ton of standard armor is equal to 16 points of armor and a large laser does eight points of damage per hit.

Now, you wouldn't see this as numbers floating off above your enemies head like some games, but you would see it as physical damage being done each time you hit your target with that large laser. The rules in Total Warfare actually give you a really solid base to work from, despite what some might think. Yes, there are draw backs to using those rules but they're not something that can't be overcome and they're not so grievous that we should scrap the entire system and start fresh.

[Glare]

Everyone. Chill. The ****. Out.

Red Beard, Paladin1, T.S. Hawk, ad hominims are never an appropriate response. To anything. So quit acting like the sum total of your ages still isn't old enough to vote. You should all know better.

THAT SAID: Red Beard: FAQ is pretty definitive on how Tabletop rules are being followed as close as is practical with regards to mechanics, not with regards to what you think will sell. Furthermore, inventing statistics and then failing to follow up with sources for said statistics (1 to 5% of players even care. Source that or drop it) is bad form. Keep it clean, folks.

Paladin1 and T.S. Hawk: It doesn't matter how trollish you think he's being, it is never okay to respond with insults, even if fired upon first.

Now I'm sure we can have a civil discussion without actual mods stepping in, quineg?

Nik Van Rhijn: Cray, over on the official BattleTech forums, has stated numerous times that gauss rifle slugs reach velocities of Mach 8 or so. This is possible by not using Titanium, and instead using ceramics, much like the space shuttle does. I'll remind you that the space shuttle survives re-entry while being significantly less aerodynamic than a bullet at about Mach 23.

[Karyudo ds]

Honestly the rules for the board game are just that, and have tons of holes as they are. I don't by any means think a video game or even hardcore simulation should follow them to the letter. In the original TRO the Rifleman was written as being an awesome AA mech, while the rules themselves didn't support that in any way at all. Someone just liked Macross and what the Defender was really used for I guess.

Now on the other hand they paint a good picture, like mechs being able to uproot and bash each with trees, or even building rubble etc, little things like that, that need not work entirely as written but aren't bad ideas and could certainly be fun.

So I don't think interpreting Total Warfare literally would make sense unless this were a turn based strategy title, as an action game it certainly doesn't need to follow the literal numbering of said books but by all means I would love if they took ideas and made them work. Mechwarrior has historically felt like driving tanks in FPS games to me. Not much "sim" about them at times and few have ever gone into huge details about the mechs. I expect more of the same from this but if they could pluck concepts from the rulebooks I would at least be happy laying LRM minefields I guess.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

KingCobra, on 11 November 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! your bolth acting like TROLLS & KIDS if you keep it up we should set up a poll to vote you off the forums?

I wonder which of the two is worse...
The trolls, or the kids.

Quote

Daddy's MW was killing a 100 ton mech with 2 shots.

I can believe that.
If its two shots from a Davy Crockett.

Quote

Mach 6 to 8 - no way - 1) Air compression in the barrel would prevent anything like this 2) the projectile would melt at anythig like these speeds -even special titanium alloys nearly melt at approx Mach 4 at an altitude of 20+ miles.

Gauss Rifles do fire at speeds of at least Mach 4.
As for the projectile melting, try using Nickel-Titanium.

Quote

As for the AN-94 - at what range?

Up to 100m, iirc, but its hard to find the numbers.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The trouble is that this is applied to whichever "area" of armour is relevant say Centre Torso. The game will apply all other shots at the same time to this same area. TT scattered all shots over the whole visible area of the mech - Left & Right torso, Left & Right Arms and legs as well if the mech is facing you, as well as possible misses - 7 armour areas instead of 1. This is why we are getting "coring" of mechs with 1 hit. Given the accuracy with which the game can measure hits - and players will not accept that when they have a "good" aim shots may not even hit we have a damage model which "in game" is broken. This, to me, is the core of many of the arguements that have been raging on this forum. To put it bluntly - it doesn;t matter to the general gaming public what the "rules" say or what is truest to the BT universe - we live in RL and we need to have something that they will dind acceptable. I am perfectly willing to suspend reality for the love of the TT game. But modern PC games (and gamers) are less forgiving, and don't care about the backstory. What we can't have is 1 or 2 strike kills (headshots excepted) if we expect the masses to play - and if they don't we won't be playing for long.
It's not about who is right or wrong here - it's will enough people play and generate enough income to keep the game running.

[Gaius Cavadus]

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

Yes, I have.

[T S Hawk]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

Everyone. Chill. The ****. Out.

Red Beard, Paladin1, T.S. Hawk, ad hominims are never an appropriate response. To anything. So quit acting like the sum total of your ages still isn't old enough to vote. You should all know better.

THAT SAID: Red Beard: FAQ is pretty definitive on how Tabletop rules are being followed as close as is practical with regards to mechanics, not with regards to what you think will sell. Furthermore, inventing statistics and then failing to follow up with sources for said statistics (1 to 5% of players even care. Source that or drop it) is bad form. Keep it clean, folks.

Paladin1 and T.S. Hawk: It doesn't matter how trollish you think he's being, it is never okay to respond with insults, even if fired upon first.

Now I'm sure we can have a civil discussion without actual mods stepping in, quineg?

You are right I was out of line . So for that I do apologize for. Now can I get the keys tonight dad and go out and play BT It would also help if the site had the mods.

Edited by T.S. Hawk, 11 November 2011 - 10:46 AM.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

Yes, I have.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time in that post by saying "I don't want to play battletech, I want to play call of robots, laser eyes edition".

[topgun505]

Ok. So let's put this to an example. An Atlas in the TT game has 62 points of armor and internal structure on a leg. It would take 12 medium lasers to burn through that in one shot. Since you want this to be as real as possible then lets say we put 12 medium lasers on a medium mech which will have no trouble in rapidly closing the distance to firing range and then running circles around an Atlas and install 8 additional double heat sinks to compensate for the heat. Since they are laser weaponry there will be no gravity drop nor scattering. So that mech just has to put his crosshairs on the leg of the Atlas and fire .... once ... and the Atlas is done. No leg. Falls. Game over. Took a total of maybe ... what ... around 3 seconds? Bout 2 seconds to line up on the leg (which, let's face it, is huge and it's not likely anyone worth their salt would miss such a large target) ... and a second to take the shot.

So that Atlas lasted ... a few seconds. Yeah. That sounds like fun. Not.

The point I am trying to make is that while you are correct in that not everything from the TT will or should be translated to the CG (such as completely random targeting) .... you can NOT simply make this a 'real' sim, as then things like above will be commonplace.

This should not be an arcade game. But at the same time you can't make this a truly real sim and keep game-play/balance in sync. Some compromises have to be made.

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 05:04 AM, said:

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...

[Gaius Cavadus]

Kudzu, on 11 November 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

You could have saved yourself a lot of time in that post by saying "I don't want to play battletech, I want to play call of robots, laser eyes edition".

I don't want to play the boardgame, I want to play a video game. They are not the same thing.

If you want to simply play the boardgame on computer perhaps you should check out MegaMek. It even has multiplayer. I think you'll be much happier with MegaMek than MechWarrior Online.

I also don't really understand the Call of Duty insult. From day one I've been advocating strengthening all of the simulation aspects above and beyond the simplistic TT rules.

If anything, since you want a more simple and acrade-esque game then me, wouldn't you be more interested in "Call of Robots: Laser Eyes Edition"?

I want the Falcon 4.0 of MechWarriors.

Edited by Cavadus, 11 November 2011 - 10:58 AM.

[Glare]

The game will come out when it will, with the mechanics that it will have. Everyone needs to stop the ****-waving going on in this thread. Cavadus, we get that you want to play a video game. So does everyone else. However, more than a small number and portion of the currently forum user base wants it to follow the boardgame as closely as is feasible. It is not up to you or any of us to decide just how closely that is.

The devs will make the game. Last I checked, none of the people ******** loudest were devs. That should tell you a lot about the mindset of the team, namely, that they are not terribly worried about how the game rules will related to the table top and vice versa.

Everyone needs to take two chill pills and come back in the morning.

[Red Beard]

T.S. Hawk, on 11 November 2011 - 09:08 AM, said:

Why do you say the TT is a mess or did I misread that part in the quote that I took from you?

Ok, I see that what I said came across wrong. Please allow me to reiterate. I said "mess" because, in my opinion, I think it would create a mess if OVERLY adhered to in this VIDEO GAME.

Here's the thing. While some of my friends were rolling 2d20's to figure damage to their mechs, I was rolling mine in Car Wars. I loved the TT generation of PnP games, just like most of you. I played Car Wars and GURPS for a long time, and yes it was in a buddies attic. I loved the MW games attempts to be a simulation video game, but by that time I was already playing Coleco Vision, NES, Atari and the like, so the fact that MW was a simulation that was trying to be a PnP clone was really odd to me, as a GAMER.

In the end, these guys are the ultimate masters of both sides, so they are going to do what perpetuates their longetivity, not what a few thousand, rule book thumping fanboys cry about. They are going to make decisions based on what will carry the story and brand forward.