475 replies to this topic

[Gaius Cavadus]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

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

It's really simple; what computer was the boardgame meant to run on?

Your brain.

The ablative armor concept constructed for the the TT rules was a simplification because calculating out ballistic models including things like slope, penetration, ballistic coefficents, velocity, etc would make the game difficult and arduous to play.

Also, there are the cluster table rules meant to simplify calculating damage for weapons which fire a large volume of projectiles at once.

Another example is the traditional hit locations instead of truly localized damage tracking (i.e. the exact spot hit is what's damaged, not the meta-section it belongs to. Think of a pristine Atlas getting shot by a PPC in the shin. Realistically it would damage just the armor around of the point of impact. The rest of the leg would be untouched).

Long story short, the TT rules were made to be calculated quickly and by hand for the average person. This led to a huge simplification process.

Even FASA recognized that their rules for TT were far too simple which is why they put out the MaxTech ruleset which actually addressed some stuff like damage fall-off past maximum effective ranges.

But now it's 2011, almost 2012. My Intel i7 quadcore is a lot faster than any brain so we no longer need to constrain ourselves with rules developed for the boardgame.

We can actually have an attempt at realism rather than a simplified approximation.

So again, if all anyone wants to play is the boardgame and then go play MegaMek. Nothing is stopping any of you and we fans who are actually interested in seeing this IP grow and become relevant again won't miss you.

Anyone who advocates slavish devotion to the boardgame in every facet of MWO's gameplay is advocating for an arcade game. It's pretty much the difference between wanting Starfox and wanting Falcon 4.0.

Edit: Hahahahahaha, I just read Kudzu's post. Ooh, he mad! Why you so mad, bro? Someone beat you in MegaMek or somethin'?

Edited by Cavadus, 11 November 2011 - 12:23 PM.

[Red Beard]

Kudzu, on 11 November 2011 - 12:01 PM, said:

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

We can only hope.

[Threat Doc]

Red Beard, on 11 November 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Ugh.

No, I didn't read the whole thread, as I've no desire to be ground in with the insta-kill NOW crowd. However, my argument is just and valid, and if you don't like it, don't read it.

[Creel]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

It's really simple; what computer was the boardgame meant to run on?

Your brain.

The ablative armor concept constructed for the the TT rules was a simplification because calculating out ballistic models including things like slope, penetration, ballistic coefficents, velocity, etc would make the game difficult and arduous to play.

Also, there are the cluster table rules meant to simplify calculating damage for weapons which fire a large volume of projectiles at once.

Another example is the traditional hit locations instead of truly localized damage tracking (i.e. the exact spot hit is what's damaged, not the meta-section it belongs to. Think of a pristine Atlas getting shot by a PPC in the shin. Realistically it would damage just the armor around of the point of impact. The rest of the leg would be untouched).

Long story short, the TT rules were made to be calculated quickly and by hand for the average person. This led to a huge simplification process.

Even FASA recognized that their rules for TT were far too simple which is why they put out the MaxTech ruleset which actually addressed some stuff like damage fall-off past maximum effective ranges.

But now it's 2011, almost 2012. My Intel i7 quadcore is a lot faster than any brain so we no longer need to constrain ourselves with rules developed for the boardgame.

We can actually have an attempt at realism rather than a simplified approximation.

So again, if all anyone wants to play is the boardgame and then go play MegaMek. Nothing is stopping any of you and we fans who are actually interested in see this IP grow and become relevant again won't miss you.

Anyone who advocates slavish devotion to the boardgame in every facet of MWO's gameplay is advocating for an arcade game. It's pretty much the difference between wanting Starfox and wanting Falcon 4.0.

I have not seen anyone who wants this. What I do see are people who want a representation of the experience represented in the existing system and canon. The way that mechs are intended to function is well established in every possible facet. We know how fast they should be, we know how accurate they should be, we know what factors influence what aspects of each system. We are heavily invested in the system, and do not want silly things like realism and better technological capabilities to turn our quirky, unreliable death bringing titans, into something they have never been.

Edited by Creel, 11 November 2011 - 12:21 PM.

[Red Beard]

Kay Wolf, on 11 November 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well, guess what, I'm going to argue that point and click is not a skill.

You are joking right? The ability to put a virtual crosshair on a target on-screen faster than the opponent is something that separates the okay gamers from the ones that post their games on YT. Yeah, you're joking...

[Red Beard]

Creel, on 11 November 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

I have not seen anyone who wants this. What I do see are people who want a representation of the experience represented in the existing system and canon. The way that mechs are intended to function is well established in every possible facet. We know how fast they should be, we know how accurate they should be, we know what factors influence what aspects of each system. We are heavily invested in the system, and do not want silly things like realism and better technological capabilities to turn our quirky, unreliable death bringing titans, into something they have never been.

Wow. Sounds like MWO won't be your cup of tea.

[Glare]

Quote

Nothing is stopping any of you and we fans who are actually interested in see this IP grow and become relevant again won't miss you.

Never even try to insinuate that I don't want to see this IP grow. Forget trying to foist my ardour for the game on some misplaced desire for an arcade-y tabletop. Your slavish adherence and lack of any concept of a compromise to what you want to be the perfect sim is arguably more likely to shove this off the map again than anything arcade-y. Remember Steel Battalion? I do. 99% of people do not. It was the roots of the pure 'Mech sim, and it was just too difficult and complicated for the gamer who can afford to support this game to enjoy. Is that what you want? Alienate everyone who could support the game by making it so complex and unweildy that it dives them away?

Bonus message in italics. This game should never become anything beyond the scope of BattleTech. It is a BattleTech game, and it should stay that way.

And for the love of God, would you people please stop posting like you know what the gameplay is going to be like already. I'll freely admit that I have no real idea how it's going to work. Red Beard, there is no possible way short of being on the dev team, which I highly, highly, highly doubt, for you to know how MWO will play. Stop declaring your opinion like it's law. It's very irritating.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Creel, on 11 November 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

I have not seen anyone who wants this.

GUT CHECK TIME: MWO... FPS, Tactical RPG, (fill in the blank)?

Wining option:

55.41%: Similar to previous MechWarrior titles, but with stronger "simulation" aspects: more interesting critical systems damage, more "realistic" aiming and handling of mechs, etc.

Maybe you need read the forums a little more carefully?

[Glare]

It's a matter of degree. There is a very, very, very large, enormous, gigantic difference between making a game slightly more realistic in ways that can't accurately be covered by the table top rules already in place. It's a very different thing to advocate the kind of start-from-the-ground-up re-imagining you're proposing.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

GUT CHECK TIME: MWO... FPS, Tactical RPG, (fill in the blank)?

Wining option:

55.41%: Similar to previous MechWarrior titles, but with stronger "simulation" aspects: more interesting critical systems damage, more "realistic" aiming and handling of mechs, etc.

Maybe you need read the forums a little more carefully?

I voted that option because it sounded most like what I wanted: a "realistic" simulation of the battletech universe, not realistic simulation of our universe. The poll doesn't differentiate the two.

[Creel]

Kudzu, on 11 November 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

I voted that option because it sounded most like what I wanted: a "realistic" simulation of the battletech universe, not realistic simulation of our universe. The poll doesn't differentiate the two.

QFT.

[Creel]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

GUT CHECK TIME: MWO... FPS, Tactical RPG, (fill in the blank)?

Wining option:

55.41%: Similar to previous MechWarrior titles, but with stronger "simulation" aspects: more interesting critical systems damage, more "realistic" aiming and handling of mechs, etc.

Maybe you need read the forums a little more carefully?

I was referring to the bolded section in quotes that refers to "slavish devotion to the boardgame in every facet of MWO's gameplay"

[Gaius Cavadus]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 12:31 PM, said:

It's a very different thing to advocate the kind of start-from-the-ground-up re-imagining you're proposing.

When have I ever proposed that?

Check my posting history on stuff that I feel needs to be changed for MWO from the TT.

It basically boils down to truly localized damage, realistic weapon convergences and the effect parallel barrels have on damage spread (i.e. multiple weapons firing from parallel barrels will never hit the same spot), divorcing armor from the structural integrity of the skeleton underneath it, taking serious falling damage if you don't cushion your landing before impact, instituting a non-RNG based critical hit system (this is called ballistics), and turning weapons' maximum ranges into maximum effective ranges with damage drop-off beyond that.

And looking at that list the MaxTech rules address a lot of that though I don't necessarily agree with how it's addressed. Seriously, did you guys troll the guy who wrote up the MaxTech rules this hard? Did you berate him for turning BattleTech into something it's not?

No, of course you don't. You'd gladly shove that in my face as absolute gospel that shot straight out of Juno's ****. The hypocrisy on the part of the TT purists is absolutely shameful.

Oh gawd, the Atlas' leg has been broken up into foot, calf, and thigh sections. BattleTech is ruined! RUINED!

That's how you people act.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Kudzu, on 11 November 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

I voted that option because it sounded most like what I wanted: a "realistic" simulation of the battletech universe, not realistic simulation of our universe. The poll doesn't differentiate the two.

That was a terrible poll. It didn't really capture what seems to be splitting the two camps of people.

[TheRulesLawyer]

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.

No kidding. Not to mention most of that work is going to have to be done server-side. Its not like your PC will be running the ballistic model. Simple and fast needs to happen.

[Creel]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

When have I ever proposed that?

Check my posting history on stuff that I feel needs to be changed for MWO from the TT.

It basically boils down to truly localized damage, realistic weapon convergences and the effect parallel barrels have on damage spread (i.e. multiple weapons firing from parallel barrels will never hit the same spot), divorcing armor from the structural integrity of the skeleton underneath it, taking serious falling damage if you don't cushion your landing before impact, instituting a non-RNG based critical hit system (this is called ballistics), and turning weapons' maximum ranges into maximum effective ranges with damage drop-off beyond that.

And looking at that list the MaxTech rules address a lot of that though I don't necessarily agree with how it's addressed. Seriously, did you guys troll the guy who wrote up the MaxTech rules this hard? Did you berate him for turning BattleTech into something it's not?

No, of course you don't. You'd gladly shove that in my face as absolute gospel that shot straight out of Juno's ****. The hypocrisy on the part of the TT purists is absolutely shameful.

Oh gawd, the Atlas' leg has been broken up into foot, calf, and thigh sections. BattleTech is ruined! RUINED!

That's how you people act.

I don't act like that. I don't think other people act like that. A lot of those are good ideas, if well implemented. I suspect that we differ on the definition of "realistic weapon convergence", but other than that I think you make good points.

My biggest question is, "Why do you feel so persecuted?"

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 11 November 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

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.

I doubt that a Nickel-Ceramic alley exists - it has to be ferrous/magnetic, after all, to be capable of being fired from a Gauss Rifle.

Quote

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

At least FASA Physics aren't as ridiculous as FASAnomics.

Quote

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.

I'd suggest one of the bug 'Mechs instead, then.
LCT-1E for me please!

Quote

My biggest question is, "Why do you feel so persecuted?"

Oh, right, sorry.
*puts down the torch and pitchfork*

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 11 November 2011 - 01:38 PM.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

When have I ever proposed that?

Check my posting history on stuff that I feel needs to be changed for MWO from the TT.

It basically boils down to truly localized damage, realistic weapon convergences and the effect parallel barrels have on damage spread (i.e. multiple weapons firing from parallel barrels will never hit the same spot), divorcing armor from the structural integrity of the skeleton underneath it, taking serious falling damage if you don't cushion your landing before impact, instituting a non-RNG based critical hit system (this is called ballistics), and turning weapons' maximum ranges into maximum effective ranges with damage drop-off beyond that.

And looking at that list the MaxTech rules address a lot of that though I don't necessarily agree with how it's addressed. Seriously, did you guys troll the guy who wrote up the MaxTech rules this hard? Did you berate him for turning BattleTech into something it's not?

No, of course you don't. You'd gladly shove that in my face as absolute gospel that shot straight out of Juno's ****. The hypocrisy on the part of the TT purists is absolutely shameful.

Oh gawd, the Atlas' leg has been broken up into foot, calf, and thigh sections. BattleTech is ruined! RUINED!

That's how you people act.

I'm betting you and red neckbeard are real treats to read on other forums too. "Psh, Jedi's shouldn't be in the game because the force doesn't exist and lightsabers can't work!" "LOTR? Magic isn't real and neither are elves or orcs!" "Stars Trek is so fake, you can't go warp speed or teleport people!"

Battletech isn't realistic nor is it completely logical. Those of us who have been around it are fully aware of this and love it for all of it's campy, fun, and sometimes downright silly glory. The further away from the TT and fully established lore you go, the more you need to change the name to "generic mecha combat game".

[guardiandashi]

Cavadus, on 11 November 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

When have I ever proposed that?

Check my posting history on stuff that I feel needs to be changed for MWO from the TT.

It basically boils down to truly localized damage, realistic weapon convergences and the effect parallel barrels have on damage spread (i.e. multiple weapons firing from parallel barrels will never hit the same spot), divorcing armor from the structural integrity of the skeleton underneath it, taking serious falling damage if you don't cushion your landing before impact, instituting a non-RNG based critical hit system (this is called ballistics), and turning weapons' maximum ranges into maximum effective ranges with damage drop-off beyond that.

And looking at that list the MaxTech rules address a lot of that though I don't necessarily agree with how it's addressed. Seriously, did you guys troll the guy who wrote up the MaxTech rules this hard? Did you berate him for turning BattleTech into something it's not?

No, of course you don't. You'd gladly shove that in my face as absolute gospel that shot straight out of Juno's ****. The hypocrisy on the part of the TT purists is absolutely shameful.

Oh gawd, the Atlas' leg has been broken up into foot, calf, and thigh sections. BattleTech is ruined! RUINED!

That's how you people act.

sorry no as I have said before it is not the people who have a true understanding of the table top that are absolutist it is the people who want halo in mechs or something (still not quite sure exactly what they want) that are trying to shout down the people who are citing 25-27 years of lore and saying "that doesn't work in battletech, how about ...."

[Paul Inouye]

Folks, please stay on topic and respect others' point of views.

While I cannot comment too much on the game right now, it sufficient to say that MWO utilizes the BT rules as a starting and balancing point of reference.

Now carry on... nothing to see here.