721 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Old school, but too fitting:

[The14th]

DarkJaguar, on 12 July 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

You didn't read the OP did you?

1) I addressed convergence (your first point) by applying a slight cone of fire. The cone of fire isn't enough to cause you to miss within optimal range, but it forces damage to be spread out.

2) And?

3) So?

4) FPSes generally are not.

5) What bearing does this have on implementing a system that draws from previously balanced rules? Especially when the new content being added exists in the other system in a balanced state?

Your argument still offers no proof, it's simply "10 second turns can't be converted to 10 second of live play!" which is untrue.

And this is where I really get tired of these threads. You dismissed the fact that this is a computer game out of hand, as though it has no bearing on game design. It really makes me wonder if any of the people on the forums who pine for TT Battletech have ever actually played it. Because anybody who has played it (or any TT wargame for that matter) would realize in a heartbeat that simple adaption of turn-based strategy meatspace gaming to first-person real-time "shooters" in cyberspace is asinine.

In the TT arena, we do not actually play as our pilots/soldiers/monsters/etc..., we play as their omnipotent commander. As such we do not have direct control over their actions, we simply tell them to do something and they follow orders to the best of their abilities. That is why they are all heavily based in RNG tables, to simulate their aptitude inside the fictional battlefield conditions. It's the reason why a veteran mech jock can miss an enemy unit at near point blank range.

But in the Mechwarrior series, we ARE the mech jock. It is our own skill that determines if we were able to line up a shot on that mech strafing in and out of cover, or if we were able to successfully manuever a jump. The TT is balanced around the fact that no mech could consistently ace rolls, something you cannot control in a computer game. Especially since, aside from the fans of the true simulator genre, most players will reject any aiming system that could stop them from placing a shot where they aimed it. Can you honestly say that it would not drive you nuts if the cone of fire kept missing the arm/leg/side torso you were trying to disable?

Nobody likes an arbitrary miss, its an overiding fact of human nature that has shaped computer game design theory for decades. Its the reason why the Mechwarrior series has featured high weapon accuracy, why PGI created the Convergence system in the first place, and why turn-based strategy rules can never work as written in a real-time computer game series like Mechwarrior. The fact that you can't understand that is exactly the reason why you (and many other armchair game designers in these forums) do not work in this industry.

Edited by The14th, 12 July 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[The Cheese]

I've read this whole thread, and I'm yet to be convinced that adapting the TT rules and numbers would be superior to creating a whole new set of rules and numbers which are specifically designed to lead to a fun and balanced real time game.

The devs don't want a bad game. They're not going about things the way they are to make the game unfun. They're doing what they're doing because they want the game to be BETTER, not worse.


Mechwarrior is not a set of numbers. Mechwarrior is not CBT. Mechwarrior is Mechwarrior. You can have two games set in the same universe and have them differentiated by more than just the point of view. It doesn't make one or the other better or worse.

You long-time mechwarrior players out there. Think about when you fell in love with the game. What was it that caught you? Take the PPC for example. Was it knowing that it did 10 damage that you loved, or was it the feeling of slamming a ball of pure energy into the side of a giant tank on legs, and knowing that that **** hurt? Did the exact amount of hurt matter, or was knowing that it was "a lot" enough?

What I'm getting at isn't the idea that the numbers don't matter at all. Just that they are only a means to an end. The 'end' being the feeling you get from using it (or being hit by it).

Edited by The Cheese, 13 July 2013 - 03:08 AM.

[Victor Morson]

The14th, on 12 July 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

And this is where I really get tired of these threads. You dismissed the fact that this is a computer game out of hand, as though it has no bearing on game design. It really makes me wonder if any of the people on the forums who pine for TT Battletech have ever actually played it. Because anybody who has played it (or any TT wargame for that matter) would realize in a heartbeat that simple adaption of turn-based strategy meatspace gaming to first-person real-time "shooters" in cyberspace is asinine.

Anybody that ever played much TT too knows that even there frakenmechs are trash and if you're not picking from a random table, you're going to pick the most optimized 'mechs every time.  They'd also know that LRMs are kick your *** weapons there, and that getting stuck with an AC/2 is a punishment.  They'd also realize that the reason most 'mechs have MGs in pairs (when it'd be a great weapon in big groups) is because they want to nerf the 'mechs and make them prone to ammo explosions.

Yet most people begging for a raw TT conversion seem to realize absolutely none of this.

Edited by Victor Morson, 13 July 2013 - 03:27 AM.

[Victor Morson]

The Cheese, on 13 July 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

What I'm getting at isn't the idea that the numbers don't matter at all. Just that they are only a means to an end. The 'end' being the feeling you get from using it (or being hit by it).

I agree; outside of perhaps weapon tonnage, that they don't mean a whole lot. (For some reason, I have to admit, tonnage changes irk me.) But everything you said in your post is spot on.

I like the idea of slowing 'mechs / torsos when heat is high because it's an idea from the source material, but I in no way am pushing for it to work on the same heat table.

The biggest reason I don't even feel changes between CBT and MW "break canon" is that CBT rules are all abstractions. In fact, fluff wise, every single AC and Laser brand have different quirks, visually and actively. Yet in TableTop, each weapon acts exactly the same every time. It's simulating a LOT of things so it can only do it in 10-second chunks.

Past that all we have to go on is novel fluff for weapon behavior and some of that is wildly contradictory (or silly).

This is why sticking to the hard numbers isn't really necessary, as long as the atmosphere is right.

[Daneiel]

DarkJaguar, on 01 July 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

If MWO utilized TT DPS numbers (or double TT DPS numbers, as the armor is currently doubled), that portion of balancing would be done. “But DJ!” you might say “No one wants to wait 10 seconds to fire their guns!”, that’s not an issue. To achieve the 2.00 DPS of the AC20, rather than fire one big shot of 20, why not 4 smaller shots of 5dmg every 2.5/sec, or even a 10 round burst of 2dmg shells over the period of 5 seconds followed by a 5 second reload time, or any combination thereof that results in a 2.00 DPS.

The goal here is to take those huge chunks of damage and spread them out over a 10 second period. Why 10 seconds? Because that’s how long a round in BattleTech lasts, so that’s the time scale we’re converting to real time.

Additionally, PGI could offer different variants of weapons based around the same DPS, I.E. instead of all AC20’s dealing 20 damage in 10 shots, players could select a cannon that does 20 damage in one shot with a 10 second reload time, one that does 20 damage in 4 shots with a 2.5 second reload time between shots, or one that does 20 damage over 10 shots, firing a shell every half second.

I am completely agree with you especialy on that part - its the same sugestion that i made long before closed beta . That way of handling for the weapon values leave open door for PGI to introduce much large variety weapons for IS without breaking the time line and even give them huge openening to implement stock game mod with customisation or even hard point size restriction without sacrificing too much from customisation , but honestly i doubt that we see it , as was told on my suggestion long time ago (if remember right ) its to much resource and time to be implemented .Also in that way is much more lore friendly instead having one weapon of a class with constantly twiching stats.

P.S. That suggestion can work even better with the Homeless Bill proposal and will give the game an age that will be hard to match from any other MMO game at that point and really can become a model .

Edited by daneiel varna, 13 July 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[stjobe]

The Cheese, on 13 July 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

Mechwarrior is not a set of numbers. Mechwarrior is not CBT. Mechwarrior is Mechwarrior. You can have two games set in the same universe and have them differentiated by more than just the point of view. It doesn't make one or the other better or worse.

I've said it numerous times, and I'll say it again: What defines something as being in the BattleTech universe is adherence to the BattleTech lore, not necessarily the numbers of the TT rules. Those rules are themselves just abstractions of the lore behind them. They are also a game system, balanced to make a table-top game enjoyable and giving a feeling of playing out lance- to company-sized combat in the BattleTech universe.

Does this make them well-suited or ill-suited as a starting point for a first-person real-time computer game? The jury seems to be out on that one, but what can definitely be said is that adhering to some of the TT rules while ignoring others makes for a badly balanced game - in that much the OP is completely correct.

I want a game that gives me the feeling of being a MechWarrior in the BattleTech universe - and the BattleTech universe for me is firmly grounded in the capabilities a 'mech has under the TT rules, since that's where I first came into contact with this universe in the mid-80's. The rules of TT together with the Technical Readouts and the novels are what defines the BattleTech universe for me, and if something breaks that lore it had better do it in a way that still makes it feel like it belongs in the BattleTech universe, otherwise this game becomes Stompy Robot Wars #32™.

The Cheese, on 13 July 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

What I'm getting at isn't the idea that the numbers don't matter at all. Just that they are only a means to an end. The 'end' being the feeling you get from using it (or being hit by it).

As I said, I want a game that feels like I'm a MechWarrior in the BattleTech universe. To be totally truthful, I don't much care if this is achieved through strict adherence to TT rules, or by making up a whole new set of numbers - as long as those numbers achieve the goal of making the game feel like it's set in the BattleTech universe.

I think you could go either way, the only thing I think is apparent at this point in time is that you can't do both. You can't adhere to some of the TT rules and values and skip others.

Edited by stjobe, 13 July 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[FaceRipt]

http://mwomercs.com/...meplay-systems/

This idea is better than your cone of fire - random sucks

But as usual I'm sure such an unskilled player as myself am wrong and as a founder you are right.

Edited by FaceRipt, 13 July 2013 - 07:21 AM.

[The Cheese]

StJobe, I think I love you.

Though I am drinking, so my judgement may be clouded.

[DarkJaguar]

The Cheese, on 13 July 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

I've read this whole thread, and I'm yet to be convinced that adapting the TT rules and numbers would be superior to creating a whole new set of rules and numbers which are specifically designed to lead to a fun and balanced real time game.

The devs don't want a bad game. They're not going about things the way they are to make the game unfun. They're doing what they're doing because they want the game to be BETTER, not worse.

Mechwarrior is not a set of numbers. Mechwarrior is not CBT. Mechwarrior is Mechwarrior. You can have two games set in the same universe and have them differentiated by more than just the point of view. It doesn't make one or the other better or worse.

You long-time mechwarrior players out there. Think about when you fell in love with the game. What was it that caught you? Take the PPC for example. Was it knowing that it did 10 damage that you loved, or was it the feeling of slamming a ball of pure energy into the side of a giant tank on legs, and knowing that that **** hurt? Did the exact amount of hurt matter, or was knowing that it was "a lot" enough?

What I'm getting at isn't the idea that the numbers don't matter at all. Just that they are only a means to an end. The 'end' being the feeling you get from using it (or being hit by it).

If you had truly read the OP you would realize that I didn’t just take TT numbers and plug them into a real time game. PGI did that, and it failed. I translated a 10 second abstract into real time space in a way that keeps every weapon useful, places them in the correct order of DPS and HPS, gets rid of the silly extra 30 heat cap that PGI randomly threw in, and eliminates pin point aiming (having location based health will NEVER work with pin point aiming).
I feel like you’re arguing with me not based on content, but that I based my content on lore, when in reality what I presented was a lore inspired TRANSLATION that better captures the feel of the game. If you feel the numbers/rules I provided wouldn’t work, that’s fine, but if you’re going to argue against them, please offer proof, or even an example, as to why you think so.

Victor Morson, on 13 July 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

I agree; outside of perhaps weapon tonnage, that they don't mean a whole lot. (For some reason, I have to admit, tonnage changes irk me.) But everything you said in your post is spot on.

I like the idea of slowing 'mechs / torsos when heat is high because it's an idea from the source material, but I in no way am pushing for it to work on the same heat table.

The biggest reason I don't even feel changes between CBT and MW "break canon" is that CBT rules are all abstractions. In fact, fluff wise, every single AC and Laser brand have different quirks, visually and actively. Yet in TableTop, each weapon acts exactly the same every time. It's simulating a LOT of things so it can only do it in 10-second chunks.

Past that all we have to go on is novel fluff for weapon behavior and some of that is wildly contradictory (or silly).

This is why sticking to the hard numbers isn't really necessary, as long as the atmosphere is right.

As I have said before, I didn’t stick to hard numbers, I translated the hard numbers based on a 10 second abstraction. If you’re still not understanding, please go re-read the OP, or at the very least, the section on “time” I just added based one the previous few pages of conversation.

daneiel varna, on 13 July 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

I am completely agree with you especialy on that part - its the same sugestion that i made long before closed beta . That way of handling for the weapon values leave open door for PGI to introduce much large variety weapons for IS without breaking the time line and even give them huge openening to implement stock game mod with customisation or even hard point size restriction without sacrificing too much from customisation , but honestly i doubt that we see it , as was told on my suggestion long time ago (if remember right ) its to much resource and time to be implemented .Also in that way is much more lore friendly instead having one weapon of a class with constantly twiching stats.

P.S. That suggestion can work even better with the Homeless Bill proposal and will the game an age that will be hard to match to anyother MMO game at that point and really can become a model .

Homeless Bill has some great ideas, I would very much like to work with him, Pht, and Sereglach to create a composite system that is based on well thought out ideas and adheres to lore as much as possible. If we don’t stick to lore/tt –FEELING- we’re not playing mechwarrior, we’re playing unreal tournament with different character models.

FaceRipt, on 13 July 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...meplay-systems/

This idea is better than your cone of fire - random sucks

But as usual I'm sure such an unskilled player as myself am wrong and as a founder you are right.

No, you're not wrong because you're not a founder, you're wrong because that system still allows for the root cause of the convergence problem; multiple weapons consistently hitting the same pixel.

Okay, now that that’s out of the way, here’s a bit of explanation on the COF system and how it would work. Keep in mind that the big red circle there is smaller than the current reticle’s circle, it represents probably the inner 50% of that circle if not less.

[GumbyC2C]

actually, if you want to balance this game, give us integrated VOIP. When I play with my team in a four man drop using TS, boats do not bother us too much because we can coordinate fire on them and dispatch them very quickly. Teamwork can solve these issues. Just give us the one tool that makes this possible.

[DarkJaguar]

GumbyC2C, on 13 July 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

actually, if you want to balance this game, give us integrated VOIP. When I play with my team in a four man drop using TS, boats do not bother us too much because we can coordinate fire on them and dispatch them very quickly. Teamwork can solve these issues. Just give us the one tool that makes this possible.

To an extent, this would help "PUGs" stand up to teams better (you'd still get trounced usually though...). It won't really help balance the game, as a team will bring a complementary lance, and PUGs will bring whatever PUGs bring. Furthermore, with the current PPC meta, and the upcoming Gauss+2PPC meta, anyone who isn't driving something equipped to deal 35+ DMG to a single pixel in one shot is going to be handicapping themselves.

[GumbyC2C]

if everyone is running one Gauss+2PPCs as you suggest will happen (I am not changing any of my builds to this BTW) then there is no complimentary lance issue to make it tougher on the PUGers. If you add integrated VOIP, the only thing the teams have over the PUGers is that they are used to playing with each other. That's not an insurmountable disadvantage for the PUGers.

I may have misspoke before as well well when I said that VOIP would bring balance. The other thing that would be nice would be a fix to the matchmaker that prevents a big weight mismatch. Two Awesomes + two Victors does not equal two Stalkers + two Atlases. But the current matchmaker by my understanding of how it works would call that an even weight matchup.

[The14th]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

If you had truly read the OP you would realize that I didn’t just take TT numbers and plug them into a real time game. PGI did that, and it failed.

That's funny, because after re-reading the OP it looks like you said they are using a heavily modified real-time version of the TT numbers.

[DarkJaguar]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

That's funny, because after re-reading the OP it looks like you said they are using a heavily modified real-time version of the TT numbers.

They're using TT numbers, not values. The difference here is an equation.

PPC=10 Damage vs PPC=10 Damage/10 Seconds. By ignoring the time factor as PGI has done, and then assigning arbitrary recycle times to TT numbers, you get weapons with anywhere between 2 to 20 times the intended damage. Then they doubled the armor values to try and account for this 2-10x multiplication factor. They also added in 30 points of heat capacity on top of the TT value which is equivalent to your heat sinks, forcing PGI to nerf DHS, and THEN they made every weapon hit the same pixel always.

So yes, they used TT numbers, they didn't use TT values, or apply them in a system that parallels TT.

[GumbyC2C]

should have gone with the Solairis 7 rules as a base if you want to try and make TT fit a video game

[stjobe]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

They're using TT numbers, not values. The difference here is an equation.

PPC=10 Damage vs PPC=10 Damage/10 Seconds. By ignoring the time factor as PGI has done, and then assigning arbitrary recycle times to TT numbers, you get weapons with anywhere between 2 to 20 times the intended damage. Then they doubled the armor values to try and account for this 2-10x multiplication factor. They also added in 30 points of heat capacity on top of the TT value which is equivalent to your heat sinks, forcing PGI to nerf DHS, and THEN they made every weapon hit the same pixel always.

So yes, they used TT numbers, they didn't use TT values, or apply them in a system that parallels TT.

Something that struck me the other week was that if they do raise the armour and internal structure values again (as the rumour says they may be about to do), we may actually get closer to the TT balance even though the numbers are all off.

The reason for this is that exactly as you said, they kept weapon damage numbers but roughly tripled rate of fire. Now that made weapons roughly three times stronger than they should be, and the matches were over too quickly. So they doubled armour values. Now if they add another 50% armour, we're back to TT balance between weapon power and armour values.

Although we're still going further from the TT feel, as individually the weapons get weaker from higher armour values, and a single AC/20 hit may not even breach head armour.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, or that it would fix anything, I just thought it amusing that tripling TT armour values would take us closer to TT balance - a good sign the current system is in dire need of help

GumbyC2C, on 13 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

should have gone with the Solairis 7 rules as a base if you want to try and make TT fit a video game

They did. That's why we're in this mess. Solaris VI is a horrible, horrible system.

Edited by stjobe, 13 July 2013 - 08:30 AM.

[DarkJaguar]

Okay, so I've been trying to figure out a good analogy for what I'm trying to do, as opposed to what I perceive PGI as having done...

Let's say that Tabletop is the English language...

Every consonant is a damage number, every vowel is a recycle time, and every word is a "value" as defined above.

Now, let's say that a real time shooter is german...

It uses the same alphabet (mostly!) but it uses different consonants and vowels to make legitimate words, or different damage and recycle numbers to make functional values.

However, what PGI has done, is kept the consonants in place, but changed out the vowels in their attempt to translate from "English" to "German"...

To the point that what you end up with is gibberish, as those consonants just don't works with those vowels.

Is that a good explanation?

[The14th]

DarkJaguar, on 13 July 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

They're using TT numbers, not values. The difference here is an equation.

PPC=10 Damage vs PPC=10 Damage/10 Seconds. By ignoring the time factor as PGI has done, and then assigning arbitrary recycle times to TT numbers, you get weapons with anywhere between 2 to 20 times the intended damage. Then they doubled the armor values to try and account for this 2-10x multiplication factor. They also added in 30 points of heat capacity on top of the TT value which is equivalent to your heat sinks, forcing PGI to nerf DHS, and THEN they made every weapon hit the same pixel always.

So yes, they used TT numbers, they didn't use TT values, or apply them in a system that parallels TT.

You do realize that for that math to hold up in real time we would only be allowed to make one shot every ten seconds no matter how many weapons you have, right? One of the largest flaws in comparing turn-based and real-time systems is that most turns do not represent an accurate flow of time as we know it. This is because a linear flow of time as seen in the TT would only allow one person to be moving at a time. And since that is NOT how real-time computer games work, trying to just equate values at face value between the two games cannot be done. So PGI did what most studios do when making such an adaption, they started from the existing numbers base and began modifying it to their own ends. And shockingly enough, this leads to a long road of trial and error before one can reach a state of "balanced" play.

[DarkJaguar]

The14th, on 13 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

You do realize that for that math to hold up in real time we would only be allowed to make one shot every ten seconds no matter how many weapons you have, right? One of the largest flaws in comparing turn-based and real-time systems is that most turns do not represent an accurate flow of time as we know it. This is because a linear flow of time as seen in the TT would only allow one person to be moving at a time. And since that is NOT how real-time computer games work, trying to just equate values at face value between the two games cannot be done. So PGI did what most studios do when making such an adaption, they started from the existing numbers base and began modifying it to their own ends. And shockingly enough, this leads to a long road of trial and error before one can reach a state of "balanced" play.

really?



So this doesn't do the TT value of damage and heat over the proper time scale?

nor does this?


I mean, if those didn't work, when you put them side by side, they wouldn't both be at 10 damage at the end of 10 seconds...



...