475 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Mach 4 and nickel titanium I can (just) believe, especially with a vented barrel but not with a sphere - the aerodynamics are all wrong.
And Glare
"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. " The space shuttle is doing that at an altitude of about 50 miles where there is effectively no atmosphere - and what little there is causes massive friction heating. The ceramic tiles used are about the structure and density of a waffle and brittle - many break and have to be replaced. Ceramics are brittle, its part of their makeup and relatively light. It's a simple matter of aerodynamics, you can't get any physical object to do Mach 8 in atmosphere at anything approaching sea level. With all due respects to Cray scientific facts in the real world and BattleTech fora very rarely have more than a noding aqaintance.

[Glare]

Haha, Cray is one of the BattleTech writers that previously made his living as a materials engineer. I hope you'll excuse me if I take his word over yours.

Regardless, in order for Gauss RIfle slugs to do the amount of damage they do (rougly equated by Cray in one of his mega-posts, in MegaJoules), the projectile, assuming it weighs 125 kg (the ammo bin weighs nothing), must be doing something like Mach 6 or Mach 8 in order to transfer the amount of kinetic energy that it has to transfer.

Blame the Rule of Cool.

[Red Beard]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

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.

Cavadus, for what it's worth, I just used my last "like" on this post.

[gregsolidus]

No, god no.

[Glare]

Cadavus: your reply somewhat confuses me. How, exactly, is following the tabletop a "more simple and arcade-esque game?"

The only way I can see that happening is if the devs for some reason go with some bizarre amalgamation of all the worse case scenarios of bad rules implementation. If anything, by its very nature, the tabletop game makes for a truer "simulation" to the spirit of BattleTech than anything that could remotely called 'realistic.'

[Darkmoose]

Having been a TT player for almost 15 years, there are some things that should be taken into account. I do believe we can do away with all the Piloting and Gunnery stuff, with some exceptions, like wonky sensors for overheated mechs, reduced movement rates for overheated mechs, ammo and engine explosions overheated mechs, and aim points for targeting computers. But other things like piloting skills for taking massive amounts of damage could be coded relatively easily, piloting gunnery skills for injured mechwarriors, or skill rolls for walking through rough terrain. Like the TT Game I also like the ability to customize mechs to my preference, but there are some things that should have a time penalty, for example trying to shoehorn a larger engine in should take maybe a 2-3 Days to complete so you would be unable to use that mech during that time, changing internal structure should take 3-4 days, just to take into account that this is say a factory refit as opposed to some tech kitbashing new weapons on a mech at a base, but I believe there should be a time penalty for that as well, a few hours, per weapon, heat sinks, or other type of equipment. I would be happy with the game mechanics of MW2, but it isn't my game and I don't get to choose.

[UncleKulikov]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 11 November 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

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.

The way to allow a chance for miss unless you have a really good shot is to have a cone of fire, so that the player can tell when his shot will be more or less accurate depending on his situation, due to the live feedback of the reticule.

The game doesn't have to use the exact mechanics of tabletop, because that would be a work around of a work around. TT rules were built to translate "what happens in the game" into something that players can process while playing with models on hex sheets. Translating from that translation would be a supremely bad idea.

Instead, reverse-engineer from the tabletop how the game should happen, like how different parts of the mech can be damaged separately, how different situations negatively affect your accuracy, how heat has negative effects on your mech, how mechs can fall over if damaged or used recklessly and so on.

Take those things that happen in the game, and write mechanics in computer game language to translate those for MWO and everything will be peachy keen.

[Darkmoose]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

Haha, Cray is one of the BattleTech writers that previously made his living as a materials engineer. I hope you'll excuse me if I take his word over yours.

Regardless, in order for Gauss RIfle slugs to do the amount of damage they do (rougly equated by Cray in one of his mega-posts, in MegaJoules), the projectile, assuming it weighs 125 kg (the ammo bin weighs nothing), must be doing something like Mach 6 or Mach 8 in order to transfer the amount of kinetic energy that it has to transfer.

Blame the Rule of Cool.

FASA Fysics.
Don't let the cat girls out.

[gregsolidus]

The only problem with a time mechanic that people over look with frightening ease is that depending on the in game to real world time ratio you may be waiting for 30 minutes or more on your mech, maybe 20 minutes for Steve's new Razorback ECM suite,maybe 40 minutes for Bob's total refit of his Bushwhacker,and 15 for Mike's LRM upgrade.You actually create a barrier to match making.

[UncleKulikov]

gregsolidus, on 11 November 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

The only problem with a time mechanic that people over look with frightening ease is that depending on the in game to real world time ratio you may be waiting for 30 minutes or more on your mech, maybe 20 minutes for Steve's new Razorback ECM suite,maybe 40 minutes for Bob's total refit of his Bushwhacker,and 15 for Mike's LRM upgrade.You actually create a barrier to match making.

It could work if players have more than one mech in the garage, so that you retire the one for work and switch to an alt while it's being adjusted. World of Tanks does that. You could also have a "bottom line" mech, like the Urban Mech that is available to all players regardless of other circumstances, so they could always play.

[gregsolidus]

That would mean I would have to buy multiples of my favorite mechs or those that have my preferred loadout as not to be a burden on my team or not to be locked out of multiplayer with only an Urbanmech,that sounds an awful lot like a stick.

Edited by gregsolidus, 11 November 2011 - 11:34 AM.

[Gunslinger2]

Amechwarrior, on 08 November 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

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.

Mektek added a Katapult with one of the mekpaks , nasty little ****** it is. http://www.jadefalco...?title=Katapult

[Hodo]

To the OP,

There was a game and a MMO that did the TT justice granted it followed the alternate rule set, Solaris VII. But it did transition well into the virtual world. Unlike Mechwarrior where the Medium Pulse Laser was king. Or the Machine gun was god!



This game followed the Arena rules, which was 4X based. All heat generated was 4 times the base heat. Weapons had a reload/recharge time based on the books. A Large Laser for example generated 32 heat in the S7 rules, but still did 8 damage. But it also had a 2 turn delay, or about 5 seconds in the virtual world.

This was perfect because if you waited 4 turns between firing, or a standard Battletech turn, you only generated 8 heat as the standard rules stated. But if you fired it twice in a single battletech turn, or at its max rate of fire, you would generate 24 heat. You are overworking the gun after all.

Your heatsinks still worked like normal, they removed 1 heat per sink per turn. So in S7 your standard 10HS mech would remove 10 heat per turn or per 2.5seconds.

It is a perfect system for any virtual battletech conversion. It made sense, it worked smoothly, and fit well with in the canon (fluff) of the game.

A smart pilot could manage his heat nicely and do a great deal of damage. But a bad pilot would just overheat and shut down in a matter of seconds.

It was so good that even EA used this system when they put out Multiplayer Battletech: 3025. Which was live for a few months then they killed it.

The Microprose, later Activision Mechwarrior games were bad, they took the universe concept and made a robot fighting game. Where mechs were massive, fast shooting laser machines. Where the Medium Pulse Laser was king. And all LRMs were homing.

Oh and you couldnt hit the head of anything because they made the hit box so jacked up that it was impossible to hit no matter HOW big it was. Then they upped the armor on the head to a level that was impossible in the TT game.

I dont mind making the hit box hard to hit, but dont ***** with the armor on it much. If I hit the head of a WSP-1A with a PPC, it should have no head.

[CeeKay Boques]

Quote

I want the Falcon 4.0 of MechWarriors.

I love this sentiment, me too! By the way, free to play (*sort of), better than ever (modern even), awesome looking Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.32 is located here


But... Falcon 4.0 is a simulator, using the specs, information, and abilities of the aircraft, cultivated from blueprints, techmanuals, and flight knowledge.


TT Manuals are those blueprints and Techmanuals for battletech. This ain't no turn based game, but in 4 hugantic manuals, every possible conceiveable situation is detailed. Should they all match? nah. Should I knock an assault one hex back if charge with a light? No. Should all mechs move "6 hexes or 8"? No, they can all have specific, accurate KPH numbers.

But those manuals are the blueprints, and a hell of a resource to make this game. You might have not of thought of "what happens if I step off cliff onto a prone mech?" Well there it is. The rules don't have to match, but the concepts are great. Oh yeah... glancing shots... one leg off? Firing from prone? I'm thinking a lot of you haven't read the TT rules, because you'd recognize them for what they are, a detail of almost every possible situation that can be run into in mech on mech action. The end result can be different, but I'm glad they're looking at each of those situations.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

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

That's correct, but there's absolutely nothing stopping the devs from better simulating the battletech universe in a videogame, something the MW series has failed to do.

Quote

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.

Foolish child, I'm one of the better players you'll meet on Megamek. Maybe you should spend some time on one of the campaign servers and get a feel for real battletech.

Quote

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.

Those "simplistic rules" ARE what make battletech what it is. If you want super-accurate mechs and constant one hit kills without regard to tactical maneuvering and teamwork then you don't want battletech at all.

Quote

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"?

Let me guess, you were introduced to battletech via the mech assault games.

[Threat Doc]

Mchawkeye, on 08 November 2011 - 03:50 AM, said:

As a simulation, with physics and everything else on top, everything should be able to be accounted for though interaction with the virtual universe. Do flight sims use expanding reticules to account for relative speed or turbulence? No, their aircraft and the bullets and the missiles that they fire are all physically represented in the virtual world and the forces within that universe act on them accordingly; weather it's having to lead the cannon to shoot down a enemy or if a flare of chaff is accurate enough to distract the incoming missile.

You've argued yourself out, MCH. You're trying to advocate for pinpoint weapons fire, what I call twitcher skill, but now you're saying that you even have to lead aircraft to be able to hit them. Now, let's take your analogy a few steps further, because fighter craft are NOT BattleMechs, either in the real world today or the possible future of tomorrow. In the air, you have turbulence, you have the sun shining in your face if your target is leading you the way they should be, you have the varying speeds of your fighter craft, you have trajectory drift and shift, gravity.

Now, add to that, from the fluff, 200+ year-old computers, the fact that you're disoriented as a pilot because your CG is not on the ground where it's supposed to be, the CG of you and your 'Mech are not lined up, even with neurohelmet support, you have actual bullet stopping terrain and various types of cover, concealment, and artificial blockages (read buildings) in the way, and the heat your weapons and movement, and certain weapons fire you take are further disrupting your computer systems, your own sense of balance, which puts your CG compared to your 'Mechs CG further off balance, and you're watching the ground beneath and in front of you to make sure you don't step on anything that could put your 'Mech in a repair berth for at least a few days, if not several months.

Have you ever been the lead car at a train crossing, and been staring at the train cars straight on? You get dizzy and nauseated, don't you? Now, imagine having to overcome that 30+ feet in the air, and have enough concentration to keep your 'Mech upright. Also, imagine you are taking fire and you're trying to react to it; what you think is a perfectly justifiable reaction your 'Mechs movement conversion circuitry throws back in your face enough to put you on your back, so you have to train yourself to make even smaller moves, smaller adjustments, so you're not thrown all over your cockpit.

Now, I'm not saying that ANY of what I've just told you will find it's way into MWO, not in the least, but I am trying to relay to you the genius of the tabletop developers when they were first building this game, about movement modifiers, piloting skill mods, firing weapons, heat management, asset control, etc. Except for some of these mods finding their way into MW3, none of the games have been faithful to the tabletop, which tabletop experience is as accurate as the developers thought it should be at the time. Get it?

[UncleKulikov]

gregsolidus, on 11 November 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

That would mean I would have to buy multiples of my favorite mechs or those that have my preferred loadout as not to be a burden on my team or not to be locked out of multiplayer with only an Urbanmech,that sounds an awful lot like a stick.

Maybe the devs have a different method then.

[Red Beard]

gregsolidus, on 11 November 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

The only problem with a time mechanic that people over look with frightening ease is that depending on the in game to real world time ratio you may be waiting for 30 minutes or more on your mech, maybe 20 minutes for Steve's new Razorback ECM suite,maybe 40 minutes for Bob's total refit of his Bushwhacker,and 15 for Mike's LRM upgrade.You actually create a barrier to match making.

I'd suggest making it cost a relative amount of C-bills, instead of a time penalty. To take on some slightly reality-esque basis, it would certainly cost REAL time and money to re-fit a fighter jet, or such. If you don't have the C-bills, no re-fit.

Likewise, this would make pilots consider, carefully, what they are going to change out, or if it is even necessary.

Edited by Red Beard, 11 November 2011 - 12:13 PM.

[Red Beard]

Kay Wolf, on 11 November 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

You've argued yourself out, MCH. You're trying to advocate for pinpoint weapons fire, what I call twitcher skill, but now you're saying that you even have to lead aircraft to be able to hit them. Now, let's take your analogy a few steps further, because fighter craft are NOT BattleMechs, either in the real world today or the possible future of tomorrow. In the air, you have turbulence, you have the sun shining in your face if your target is leading you the way they should be, you have the varying speeds of your fighter craft, you have trajectory drift and shift, gravity.

Now, add to that, from the fluff, 200+ year-old computers, the fact that you're disoriented as a pilot because your CG is not on the ground where it's supposed to be, the CG of you and your 'Mech are not lined up, even with neurohelmet support, you have actual bullet stopping terrain and various types of cover, concealment, and artificial blockages (read buildings) in the way, and the heat your weapons and movement, and certain weapons fire you take are further disrupting your computer systems, your own sense of balance, which puts your CG compared to your 'Mechs CG further off balance, and you're watching the ground beneath and in front of you to make sure you don't step on anything that could put your 'Mech in a repair berth for at least a few days, if not several months.

Have you ever been the lead car at a train crossing, and been staring at the train cars straight on? You get dizzy and nauseated, don't you? Now, imagine having to overcome that 30+ feet in the air, and have enough concentration to keep your 'Mech upright. Also, imagine you are taking fire and you're trying to react to it; what you think is a perfectly justifiable reaction your 'Mechs movement conversion circuitry throws back in your face enough to put you on your back, so you have to train yourself to make even smaller moves, smaller adjustments, so you're not thrown all over your cockpit.

Now, I'm not saying that ANY of what I've just told you will find it's way into MWO, not in the least, but I am trying to relay to you the genius of the tabletop developers when they were first building this game, about movement modifiers, piloting skill mods, firing weapons, heat management, asset control, etc. Except for some of these mods finding their way into MW3, none of the games have been faithful to the tabletop, which tabletop experience is as accurate as the developers thought it should be at the time. Get it?

Ugh.

[Threat Doc]

Hey, did you ever see the robot they were making in Japan, that might have reached mid-thigh on a Shadowhawk? Did you see how slow that thing moved, how much precise control the driver of that machine had to have? I don't recall whether or not there was a gyro pack in the "'Mech", but the feet barely separated and, when he was driving it forward, it could hardly turn or even move one foot more than the halfway point further of the other.

In a fighter plan, you're most likely sitting at the very front of it, and you know the rest of it is behind you, and you don't need to worry about the ground all that much as long as you're keeping your nose above 10' AGL. However, take it from an old helicopter crew chief whose flown more than his fair share of missions, in mountains, above fields, and above all sorts of bodies of water, it is super-easy to become disoriented if you have to look out very far. I would posit that, despite all manner of training and practice, a 'Mech pilot is still going to have all sorts of problems remaining perfectly oriented.

Okay, I know, you're going to argue that this isn't the real world. Well, guess what, I'm going to argue that point and click is not a skill. So, why not have a combined skill level through the rules already presented, even if slightly modified for this sim, that the TT rules are the best middle ground?