721 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Gaan Cathal, on 19 July 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

... However, the core fundamentals have always been consistent, essentially a vehicular steering FPS.

... have you ever stopped to consider if this consistent thing is how it should have been/should be done?

If doing it differently would make for more gameplay depth and fun AND better represent the lore without removing human skill as the ultimate deciding factor?

Quote

What you are proposing is a conversion of the core fundamentals of BTech TT, Megamek and MW:T into a single-unit RTS with a cockpit POV.

No. I'm not.

I've very specifically said it should be first person, REALTIME, and that all of the stuff that represents human skill in the TT combat mechanic should be left out. I have repeatedly pointed out that the form of the TT rules isn't always the best; and even given specific examples where the form of the math should be changed; and how it should be changed.

I can quote myself from elsewhere to prove this.

Quote

In short, this isn't 'your' game because you came from TT Battletech.

... Assuming things you don't know for the sake of your argument...

Quote

There is an IP to hold to here and it's the Mechwarrior (computer game, not RPG of the same name) IP.

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

Mech+Warrior= playing as someone who pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Toss out the 'mech part of the combat equation by going with the FPS/Shooter style of aiming...

- which syle of aiming only simulates properly for a weapon you're in direct control of -

...and most especially the part about how the mech actually DOES COMBAT, and you're not in the MW IP. You've got a diluted ... something else, that looks and runs around on the field like mechwarrior, but otherwise is something else.

Quote

My reply was rather..short (i.e. trollish) because I'm fairly sick of folks who are Battletech (the boardgame) fans...

You made a mistake in presuming that everyone who references the TT is only a "boardgame fan."

[Coolwhoami]

Pht, on 22 July 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

Mech+Warrior= playing as someone who pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Toss out the 'mech part of the combat equation by going with the FPS/Shooter style of aiming...

- which syle of aiming only simulates properly for a weapon you're in direct control of -

Just so i'm clear on what you're arguing here (the words you are saying are a bit confusing), you are arguing that the ability to manually aim removes the mech part of the game out? If so, doesn't that imply that the entire mechwarrior series up until this point are also not mechwarrior games, because they featured manual aiming?

Furthermore, again assuming I have read what you have stated correctly, what sort of aiming system would you want for this game?

Edited by Coolwhoami, 22 July 2013 - 05:28 PM.

[blinkin]

Coolwhoami, on 22 July 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Just so i'm clear on what you're arguing here (the words you are saying are a bit confusing), you are arguing that the ability to manually aim removes the mech part of the game out? If so, doesn't that imply that the entire mechwarrior series up until this point are also not mechwarrior games, because they featured manual aiming?

Furthermore, again assuming I have read what you have stated correctly, what sort of aiming system would you want for this game?

here read this if you want some clarification on what Pht means. the parts with increased font size are much more telling than anything Pht will openly say when asked. this is all DIRECTLY from the first link in his signature about how he thinks the weapons in this game should work.

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Physically, the main skill is the use of a joystick to indicate and track the desired target that one wants their 'Mech to try and hit, and the ability to pull trigger(s) exactly when necessary without disturbing one's aim. The joystick controls a firing reticule which is displayed on the main HUD in the cockpit. BTU 'Mechs are, by design, not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule or choose to shoot any weapon! Minor physical skills consist of the use of mode switches and, for example, configuring Target Interlock Circuits on the fly.

The three most important Mental gunnery skills are:

Knowing how the internal heat levels in your 'Mech will affect it's ability to aim, knowing if your 'Mech can make the shot you're indicating to it, and if you think it can make the shot, how long to let your 'Mech's Targeting and Tracking (T&T) computers calculate lead (weapons convergence) in order to hit the target being indicated and tracked by you. The decision on when to shoot or not shoot and how long let your T&T work on "a fix" is affected by other factors, which a good MechWarrior will take into account.

These factors consist of:
Choosing what weapons should be fired based on their rated battlefield ranges in relation to the distance to the target;

Knowing how the varying environmental and terrain types your 'Mech or a target is in will affect your 'Mech's ability to make the shot;

Choosing when to shoot based upon the target's behavior, for example, waiting until the target is relatively "still" enough in relation to your 'Mech's firing arc so that your 'Mech has an easier time making the shot;

Choosing what sort of movement you will be engaging in while asking your 'Mech to make a shot, for example, standing still while shooting, or running and shooting;

Choosing what types of weapons to fire based on their differing performance parameters i.e. ACs vs Gauss weapons, or pulse lasers vs normal lasers;

Choosing what types of ammo to use for ammo using weapons i.e., when to use LBX Cluster rounds vs LBX AC rounds;

Choosing firing modes for some weapons, for example, attempting to fire normal AC's in rapid fire mode, or rate of fire for Rotary ACs;

Knowing when engaging in an advanced firing mode is worth the tradeoff it requires (for instance, bracing an arm requires you to be immobile; Called Shots are harder to connect with, etc);

Knowing how the damage your 'Mech has taken will affect it's ability to make a shot (weapons can be degraded by taking damage, weapons in damaged arms might not align properly).

In case it's not already obvious, the 'Mech handles the calculation of how far to "lead" a target in order to hit the target that the MechWarrior is indicating with the reticule on his HUD. It is impossible for the MechWarrior to do these calculations anywhere near as fast or as precisely as the 'Mech's computer does them, and especially for multiple weapons types at once. YES, a 'Mech CAN align/converge all of its weapons, torso mounted or otherwise.

It should also be obvious that we can "do" all of these things with our computer peripherals - so there is no need to use and assign a "pilot gunnery skill" modifier in order to use the TT combat system and stats, and there should not be any in-game modifiers for pilot gunnery skill.

----

On to the nuts and bolts of how to "do" WFR!

The basic concept is to look at each weapon's listed TT performance and translate that into, say, a database format for the VG "engine" to work with, and also to look at how capable 'Mechs are at using those weapons in the TT and put that into the database, and any "quirks" that any individual 'Mech might have. Said DB is used in conjunction with whatever mechanic the game has for resolving where the firing and fired upon 'Mechs are and what way they are facing, what they were doing at the time of the shot, and where the targeting reticule in the firing 'Mech is placed at the time when the firing happens in order to handle WFR.

Things to know: plus modifiers ( + ) indicate things or conditions that make targets harder to hit. Negative modifiers ( - ) make it easier to hit targets. All to-hit modifiers are cumulative, and the total to-hit modifier is the number that must be equaled or surpassed when rolling two six-sided dice (2d6). Small Roller: http://www.fnordista...mallroller.html is an excellent program for calculating the effect that these modifiers have. As a rule of thumb, trying to hit anything that requires you to roll more than a six on 2d6 is a bad idea; just about half of your shots will miss on a 7. Just a little bit under 75% of your shots will hit "on a 6." The 'Mech actually indicates the to-hit number directly on the hud - it does it as color coding on the reticule; usually red for "poor targeting" (high to-hit modifier) to gold for "best targeting" (low to-hit modifier); along with audible cues.

The basic combat mechanic is to add up all of the to-hit modifiers, and than attempt to roll a number equal or higher than the total to-hit modifier on 2d6 for every weapon fired. Once it is determined which shots actually hit, the hit-location table appropriate for the situation is used to determine exactly what parts of the target your 'Mech was able to hit. The Hit-location tables are discussed in detail further down.

Now, onto how capable 'Mechs are of hitting the target indicated with their weapons

This describes the abilities of the 'Mech to handle it's weapons under varying conditions.

TARGET

Is:
Standing still -1
prone -2 from adjacent 30 meters, +1 from further out
Immobile -4
skidding +2
A Battle Armor +1
Aerofighter @ 12 high +1
Aerofighter otherwise +3
Secondary in fwd arc +1
secondary in other arc +2
Jumping +1(additional to other mods)
Flying non-aero +1
Sprinting -1
Evading +1 to +3, dependent on it's pilot's skill.

Is at:
Minimum range (minimum)-(target range)+1 (only for weapons with a minimum range, like ppcs)
Short range +0 - 100% of the shots hit
medium range +2 - 100% of the shots hit
long range +4 - 91.67% or 11 out of 12 shots hit
Extreme range +6 - 72.22% or 13 out of 18 shots hit
LOS range +8 - 27.78% or 5 out of 18 shots hit

Again, please note that this range table describes the capabilities of the 'Mech to overcome range effects on shots, NOT MechWarrior gunnery skill!

Target movement/ Target has moved (x) number of hexes:
Immobile -4 (Immobile =target CAN NOT move)
0 hexes moved -1 0 meters (standing still)
1-2 hexes moved +0 30-60 meters (10.8 to 21.6 KM/h - 6.7 to 13.4 mph)
3-4 hexes moved +1 90-120m (32.4 to 43.2 KM/h - 20.1 to 26.8 mph)
5-6 hexes moved +2 150-180m (54.0 to 64.8 KM/h - 33.5 to 40.2 mph)
7-9 hexes moved +3 210-270m (75.6 to 97.2 KM/h - 46.9 to 60.3 mph)
10-17 hexes moved +4 300-510m (108.0 to 183.6 KM/h - 67.1 to 114.0 mph)
18-24 hexes moved +5 540-720m (194.4 to 259.2 KM/h - 120.7 to 161.0 mph)
25+ hexes moved +6 750m (270.0 KM/h - 167.7 mph and up)

Yes, there are "range gaps" here; but the raw math data here can be plotted on a graph, so these "range gaps" can be "filled in," and if necessary, the raw velocities can be used to determine to-hit numbers, if that is easier for the back-end of the video game. This is an example where the exact form of the TT rules might not be the best to use, but the math expressed can still be used to get good results.

Target is in:
light woods +1
heavy woods +2
ultra heavy woods +3 (woods too dense for 'Mechs or protomechs to move through)
light jungle +1
Heavy jungle +2
Ultra heavy jungle +3 (woods too dense for 'Mechs or protomechs to move through)
Heavy industrial zone +1
Light smoke +1
heavy smoke +2
EM interference +2 (-2 cluster table)

This particular list could go on to insanity - there are many terrain and environment types that affect targeting.

SELF

Damage Effects:
Sensor hit +2
Shoulder hit +4 for weapons in arm, disregard all other damaged actuators in arm
upper or lower arm actuator (each) +1 for weapons in arm
Varying effects based on the Extended Critical Damage rules from Tactical Operations, from a +1 to-hit modifier to varying effects such as even worse to-hit modifiers, weapons jamming, or less damage output. .

Heat Effects:
0-7 +0
8-12 +1
13-16 +2
17-23 +3
24-32 +4
33-40 +5
41-47 +6
48 and higher +7

Yes, heat is EVIL! It makes the 'Mech's myomers sluggish, jerky, and unpredictable; and does ugly things to weapons alignment motors... besides possibly destroying components at extremely high heat levels. Don't even ask how evil ammo explosions can be. This is why keeping track of your 'Mech's heat level is such an important gunnery skill!

Movement & other effects:
Stationary +0
walked +1
ran +2
jumped +3
prone +2 (does not apply to quads)
skidding +1
sprinted - impossible to shoot while sprinting

Snap shots: (A no waiting on the T&T to get a good "fix" on the target indicated type of shot, the shot occurs so quickly that the 'Mech cannot torso twist or swing arms to align weapons arcs not already pointed at target)
While standing still +2
While on the move +3
While Jumping +6

Careful aim -1 to -3 (allowing your T&T computers a longer time to get a good "fix"- does not work with pulse weapons, cluster LBX rounds, or rapid-fire weapons firing more than one salvo.)
Bracing -2 (this is when you brace one of your 'Mech's arms on a structure to steady it, modifier only applies to weapons in braced arm).

... and there are more that could be listed for the 'Mechs, but this is enough and than some for right now.

---

How well a 'Mech can converge (concentrate its weapons fire into any given area) a single or all of its weapons onto a target.

This is the thing that's really been messed up in MW video games. It seems developers have so far thought that the pilots are the major factor in how well a 'Mech can converge it's weapons - which is wrong. Getting every weapon to hit a single section of a targeted 'Mech is a HARDWARE thing in the BTUniverse. Namely, if you don't have an Advanced Targeting Computer, your 'Mech won't be able to get its weapon or weapons to hit exactly what section you're aiming at on mobile targets. The advanced TC will be discussed a bit further down. There ARE also a set of hit-location tables that DO represent raw Mechwarrior Gunnery skill - the Called Shot tables. Those are discussed too. Also if a target is immobile any 'Mech, with or without an advanced TC, will be able to get more of it's weapons to concentrate onto a single area of a targeted 'Mech; this is an Aimed Shot.

BESIDES the Called Shot hit location tables that represent the pilot's gunnery skill, these hit-location tables represent the combat performance of THE BATTLEMECH.

So let's have an example; I'll work this out for a shot to the center of mass of the front of a targeted 'Mech.

Remember, this is just expressing the ability of the 'Mech to converge one or all of its weapons onto the area of the targeted 'Mech that the pilot has indicated, not weapons or pilot performance; and this is only for shots that have ALREADY been determined to have hit the targeted 'Mech.

The Basic hit-location table
This first set represents keeping the the reticule on the center of mass ("chest") of the front of the target 'Mech:

There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right arm
There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left arm
There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the right leg
There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the left leg
There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right torso
There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left torso
There's a 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the center torso
There's a 2.78% or 1 out of 36 chance of hitting the cockpit

What do all these percentages mean in the game? Well, in the DB, they're just pure numbers in a math equation, but for the player it could be expressed visually in the game manual or in training missions in color coded zones across the target to show how shots will concentrate, depending on what you're aiming at, so people could get a feeling for the combat capability of their 'Mech; and this would go for every type of hit-location table.

Here's the table that gives the data that the above is derived from:



And here's the hit-location table for 'Mechs lying on the ground (or quad 'Mechs):



Called Shot hit-location tables

These are the tables that represent how well a 'Mech's pilot can get their 'Mech to get it to put it's weapons fire into a smaller area of a targeted 'Mech. There are two tables: Call high-low, and Call left-right. Attempting to make a Called Shot adds another +3 to the to-hit number that must be overcome. This means that less of your shots will hit, but those that do hit will concentrate into a smaller area.

In game play terms, you "activate" the called-shot hit-location tables by aiming at specific parts of your target. For example, to use the "aim high" Called Shot table, you'd aim at the target's cockpit, neck, or extreme upper torso.

Called high:
There's a 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the:
Left or right arm, Left, right, or center front torsos, or the cockpit.

(Yes, this means that if anyone tells you that if you that if you aim at his cockpit, you can hit his foot ... they're wrong.)

Called Low:
A 33.34% chance of hitting the right leg
A 33.34% chance of hitting the left leg
A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right torso
A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left torso

Here's the table for Called Shots aimed high/aimed low.



For Called Shots Left or Right:
You use the normal hit-tables, except you have a +3 modifier, and you use the column one section over from where you would normally aim... for instance, if you call a shot left against a target standing directly in front of you ("in your front arc"), facing you , you use the "left" column on the basic hit table.



This table is used for calling shots Left/Right against a mech with it's front facing directly at you or it's back facing directly at you.

If your target's left or right side is facing you, and you want to aim left/right you use the Advanced hit table, posted above (which gives you a chance to hit their rear torsos).

It should be very obvious by now that the hit-location tables are VERY important. In fact, there is good reason to use the tables we already have as a standard baseline to construct more hit-tables to account for some situations which crop up in the video game format.

Aimed Shots

An Aimed shot is the occasion when a 'Mech without an advanced Targeting Computer can actually target specific locations against a target. Without a TC Aimed shots are only possible versus immobile targets, and only direct fire weapons and non-cluster ammunition types are usable for this.

The to-hit modifier for an immobile target is -4 (-5 if you have a TC) if you try and target any part other than the cockpit; cockpit aimed shots have a +3 to-hit modifier (A TC does not affect the cockpit to-hit). After it is determined how many of your shots connect, all weapons that roll a 6, 7, or 8 on 2d6 hit the location you've chosen. If you don't roll a 6,7, or 8 you don't automatically hit the specific location you aimed for. Instead, you roll on the appropriate normal hit-location table (yes, this can result in hitting the section you targeted anyways).

A 'Mech is considered immobile if it is shut down, it's pilot is unconscious, if it is bracing an arm to try and make a hard shot, if it is hooked to a coolant truck, or is having it's ammo reloaded. Quad 'Mechs that have lost 3 or 4 legs are considered immobile. A bipedal 'Mech that has lost both legs and both arms is considered immobile. "Immobile" equates to a unit not being able to move on it's own at all.

The Advanced Targeting Computer

This bit of hardware is a game-changer. It is a HIGH reward for big tradeoffs piece of hardware. Besides subtracting 1 from virtually all to-hit modifiers (including those for Called Shots), it allows your 'Mech to actually target specific locations on a mobile target!

A TC consists of an advanced computer that is far more powerful than the standard BattleMech T&T suite - it is able to adjust for many more variables far more quickly. A TC is not just an advanced computer suite, it also employs recoil compensators, gyroscopic stabilizers, and other hardware attached to the various direct-fire weapons systems mounted in a 'Mech. These components help to overcome weapons drift, muzzle recoil on kinetic weapons, and any erratic targeting inputs induced by the MechWarrior. The size and weight of a TC is directly proportional to the weight of all 'Mech-scale heavy weapons it is connected to. Inner Sphere TC's equal the total weapons weight divided by four, clan TC's divide by 5, and both take up a number of criticals (internal spaces) equal to the calculated tonnage of the TC (rounding up at half tons). Yes, they can get VERY heavy and large quite quickly... no free lunches!

In gameplay, having a TC allows you to make an Aimed Shot (not to be confused with a Called Shot) against *mobile* targets. The differences between a normal Aimed Shot vs an Immobile target and an Aimed Shot against a mobile target using a TC is that there is a +3 to-hit modifier, and it is not possible to target the cockpit on a mobile target. Otherwise, all of the other rules for an Aimed Shot apply. If my wonky math is correct, that's about 1 out of 4 shots that "make" their to-hit number will hit what you've aimed at, on average, which doesn't sound like much, until you consider that the best odds you can normally get otherwise are 1 out of 6 vs the center torso, or to hit a leg, when calling a shot low (when virtually all there IS to hit is a leg!). In practice, TC aimed shots vs mobile targets are very useful for chiseling a specific part off.

Using a TC to make a shot vs a specific location in game requires turning this function on. With this function off, a 'Mech with a TC behaves just like a 'Mech without one, except you have the advantage of a -1 to-hit modifier for most direct fire weapons types in the vast majority of situations.

---

So, what are the bonuses building the video game combat system this way? For one, it's possible put the stuff into a DB in the form of rules, which means its possible to control and predict what's going to happen, and to predict how new rules in the DB will modify gameplay. It allows the Devs to control how the combat will function in game - misses and hits with weapons can be made to visually (and otherwise) miss in ways that "Make sense." It gives the flexibility to tweak values in small amounts in order to get things "just right." It would also allow the use of the penetrating hits/internal components damage system from the TT combat system, which, with the addition of the advanced "critical hit" and critical damage rules behaves in an intuitive and predictable manner, while discouraging mindless rushing without making the game into an insta-death festival.

On the end user side - us sitting at our PC's, the advantages are that what's seen on screen behaves in a manner that makes sense and allows us to suspend disbelief ; BattleMechs actually perform like BattleMechs from the novels and the lore; Gunnery skill with a mouse and a cool head are rewarded, as is fore-thought and training; knowledge of the 'Mechs becomes useful and important (doubly so if the 'Mech "Quirks" from Strategic Ops are used); Knowledge of the weapons systems becomes important; new players aren't scared off, and veteran players have more things to pursue besides repetitive grinding for MC and the like.

Edited by blinkin, 22 July 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[Pht]

Coolwhoami, on 22 July 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Just so i'm clear on what you're arguing here (the words you are saying are a bit confusing), you are arguing that the ability to manually removes the mech part of the game out? If so, doesn't that imply that the entire mechwarrior series up until this point are also not mechwarrior games, because they featured manual aiming?

If a game is "about" doing combat in a certain type of armored combat unit;

And that armored combat unit "does" that combat in a specific way;

Shouldn't said game actually have the ACU "do" combat in said specific way?

---

No, the previous MW video games haven't gotten this right.

I'm trying to be polite and not smash certain toes into the sidewalk here.

Quote

Furthermore, again assuming I have read what you have stated correctly, what sort of aiming system would you want for this game?

I'll try and put it into a nutshell.

The player would have to control the reticule on his hud with his mouse; there would be no pause function (ala VATS), they'd still have to physically do the tracking with the mouse (controlling said reticule). The mech would not be allowed to do this tracking.

There would be no "designate target, than fire/forget" or other such automation for non-missile type weapons.

The 'mech would actually be calculating where to physically align the weapons to hit what the player had under the reticule; and be actually doing these alignments. Certain things would make it harder *for the mech* to do these things. Overheating (very VERY bad for mechs in this particular setting), or using a weapon to shoot at things beyond that weapons "medium" range, or moving very quickly and trying to shoot at a target, are examples of things that "stress" a 'mech's ability to do it's job.

This would all be done in real-time and there is no need to adhere strictly to a 10 second recycle time.

Not in a nutshell: http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__47595

PS. You should know that blinkin is bearing a grudge against me... ever since I agreed with him on a certain topic and than dared to ask him some specific questions. He isn't anything like a neutral observer at all.

Edited by Pht, 22 July 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[ElCadaver]

PGI, this well thought out post should be at the very least, be released as a trial run, in much the same way 12v12 has been trialed, and then input sought from those experiencing it.

It reminds me of an 8v8 game where all pilots used trial mechs, which are probably MWO's best attempt at achieving what the OP was talking about.

The fight was brilliant, no one was cored instantly, the brawl went on for ages, and it was a real fight to the death. Heaps of fun, nail biting stuff.

The OP's ideas could bring that back to MWO. Personally I'm beginning to hate PPC ALPHA WARRIOR ONLINE, so please take the OP's suggestions to the next level.

[Coolwhoami]

Pht, on 22 July 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

If a game is "about" doing combat in a certain type of armored combat unit;

And that armored combat unit "does" that combat in a specific way;

Shouldn't said game actually have the ACU "do" combat in said specific way?

---

No, the previous MW video games haven't gotten this right.

I'm trying to be polite and not smash certain toes into the sidewalk here.



I'll try and put it into a nutshell.

The player would have to control the reticule on his hud with his mouse; there would be no pause function (ala VATS), they'd still have to physically do the tracking with the mouse (controlling said reticule). The mech would not be allowed to do this tracking.

There would be no "designate target, than fire/forget" or other such automation for non-missile type weapons.

The 'mech would actually be calculating where to physically align the weapons to hit what the player had under the reticule; and be actually doing these alignments. Certain things would make it harder *for the mech* to do these things. Overheating (very VERY bad for mechs in this particular setting), or using a weapon to shoot at things beyond that weapons "medium" range, or moving very quickly and trying to shoot at a target, are examples of things that "stress" a 'mech's ability to do it's job.

This would all be done in real-time and there is no need to adhere strictly to a 10 second recycle time.

Not in a nutshell: http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__47595

PS. You should know that blinkin is bearing a grudge against me... ever since I agreed with him on a certain topic and than dared to ask him some specific questions. He isn't anything like a neutral observer at all.

Then I guess what is the point of even being in a cockpit at all? Not to mention, this seems to heavily imply that PGI should just adopt tabletop rules (despite the fact that it has been long known that these rules are not at all balanced), and that for all intents and purposes the notion of pilots aiming is really not at all a thing, as for the most part the game would simply be doing this for you: You would just be a targeter. I understand that this is somewhat accurate within the lore of battletech, however, for the purposes of making a game fun and rewarding, simply being a walking laser designator does not sound to me to be a great time. It certainly would adhere to how the tabletop game functions almost exactly, but is that not what the tabletop game is for?

The "FPS" controls you speak of does not intrinsically remove the acu style combat you are desiring, it simple ignores the notions of things like targeting computers in favor having the players skill both positionally and aiming wise be a factor. Either you are calling for a system that takes that into account, which means you are adding a randomizer to whether that thing hits for no other reason than to stick with tabletop rules, or you are wanting an aimless system, which at that point I am not a very active participant in the game. Sure, some very intense fans of battletech may like such a system, but I sincerely doubt many other people would, simply on the grounds that it breaks immersion in favour of adhering to rules (because an ACU would not be subject to dice rolls in order to adequately target something, this is simply a method in tabletop games of adding randomness to a system that otherwise would simple just be "I am in range, I hit you"), so your proposition does not at all provide a simulation of ACU combat, it provides a simulation of tabletop combat experienced from the first person perspective. Certainly such a system is both easier to balance, and already has a framework, but this is an absolutely extreme change to the nature of the game to perform balance.

[Pht]

Coolwhoami, on 22 July 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

Then I guess what is the point of even being in a cockpit at all?

Why do you say this?

Quote

Not to mention, this seems to heavily imply that PGI should just adopt tabletop rules (despite the fact that it has been long known that these rules are not at all balanced),

Ok; you say they're not balanced.

Which ones aren't "balanced," and why is your definition of "balance' proper?

I'm not snarking you. I really want to know.

Everyone claims this. Nobody shows why this claim is anything more than a claim.

Quote

and that for all intents and purposes the notion of pilots aiming is really not at all a thing, as for the most part the game would simply be doing this for you: You would just be a targeter.

Than you have to tell every armored combat gunner that they don't aim their unit's gun; that their aiming "really isn't a thing" - aka, NOTHING.

This is also like saying that a marine-scout-sniper doesn't aim, because the wind might be an external factor that could stop him from hitting his target.

Quote

I understand that this is somewhat accurate within the lore of battletech, however, for the purposes of making a game fun and rewarding, simply being a walking laser designator does not sound to me to be a great time. It certainly would adhere to how the tabletop game functions almost exactly, but is that not what the tabletop game is for?

This is not "somewhat accurate to the lore."

IT is how the lore does it.

And we have confirmation from the people who make, maintain, and get paid to "do" the lore.

Cray said:

Quote from: Pht on 15 January 2013, 18:14:14[indent]Hey, first of all, thanks for your time & reading this.

The question is:

What written BattleTech materials are considered canonical and used to form the boundaries in which novelists and sourcebook writers stay?[/indent]

The rule for continuity review of new material is that:

1) Rules take precedence
2) Fluff and novels are next
3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain
4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications
5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.

So, if the writer of a new novel turned in a draft to fact checkers that said, "The MechWarrior plotted his next shot with the cockpit's Ouija board," the fact checkers would, by default, turn to Tech Manual for its description of how BattleMech fire control works and provide proper references for the author to correct his error.

Now, if the writer pointed out that a (hypothetical) rule in Total Warfare specified BattleMech fire control was to be handled with a Ouija board, then the rules would take precedence over the fluff. But until contradicted by the rules (or overridden by someone at a higher pay grade), the "fluff" of Tech Manual, Strategic Operations, etc., is very much enforced during continuity reviews.

Quote[indent]For example, are the Tech Manual "fluff" descriptions of how a BattleMech's targeting and tracking system and diagnostic interface do the grunt work of aiming 'Mech weaponry something that novelists and other writers would have to adhere to? Or can such "fluff" be ignored at will by novelists to provide their versions of how BattleMech's perform and behave?[/indent]

That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions. (Not directly - such continuity commentary is subject to editorial / line developer oversight. See point 5, above.) As it stands, Tech Manual has the current descriptions of how BattleMech weaponry and movement is controlled and writers stick to that.

http://bg.battletech...is590#msg591660

Quote

The "FPS" controls you speak of does not intrinsically remove the acu style combat you are desiring, it simple ignores the notions of things like targeting computers in favor having the players skill both positionally and aiming wise be a factor.

The FPS does remove it. The pure FPS mechanic does NO simulation of any kind of how a battlemech actually handles it's weapons. ZERO.

Mwo has only added the woefully inadequate seperate reticules and jumpjet shake.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Quote

Either you are calling for a system that takes that into account, which means you are adding a randomizer to whether that thing hits for no other reason than to stick with tabletop rules,...

The rules which describe how the 'mechs do comat in the lore; which give PREDICTABLE hit percentages based upon KNOWABLE conditions, conditions which can be CONTROLLED by player choices (skill).

Quote

(because an ACU would not be subject to dice rolls in order to adequately target something, this is simply a method in tabletop games of adding randomness to a system that otherwise would simple just be "I am in range, I hit you"),

Now you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The modifiers in the game simply are a math tool to describe how whatever condtions affect a 'mechs ability to actually bring the weapons to bear.

The exact same gripe applies to a full on top-flight physics engine; all it is is a fancier way to get the same end result - hit percentages based upon conditions when the shot is made.

Quote

so your proposition does not at all provide a simulation of ACU combat, it provides a simulation of tabletop combat experienced from the first person perspective.

You automatically presume that the TT combat and the combat in the lore are mutually exclusive. They are not. Which is spelled out in black and white fact at the link to the BG.BT forums above by the line developer in the forum there specifically made for the people that run/make the lore to answer exactly those sorts of questions.

You seem quite frankly to be unhappy with even the IDEA that a battlemech from the setting actually matters in the process of how weapons fire is resolved.

It's like you're presuming that you should be directly piloting a stack of guns. Not a mech that directly controls the guns.

Edited by Pht, 22 July 2013 - 06:32 PM.

[Sundervine]

For someone to say the TT rules are unbalanced is only a point of view, for a game to go on for as long as this one as a TT game and the weapons never get a major reset is testiment that the origonal set was on par. They all had trade offs, and that is what made the game so good. The more they added weapon wise the more convoluted it because but other than clan tech being op over innersphere I still fail to see how anything is really op.

I agree with almost everything that has been said about the weapon setups being wrong in this game. If they are going to all have turrets as stated earlier for frontal arcs, then so be it. Turrets have weight in TT. Add that to each weapon. If they are going to have limited movement then fine give them sponsoons. Those are there to. Account for the weight. if they are going to have just minor +/-x of say 2% movement fine that works as well. But all weapons on a mech should not be able to track the crosshair on said mech. They should only be able to hit at a predetermined(preferably by the player) range. Give them the limited 2% movement to say allow it to hit spot on for 50-100 meters. After or before that range they hit in a spread directly linked to their location on the mech. This still allows for skill and also for teamwork. You can still have that 4 ppc sniper do horendous damage at say 800 meters to one location, however the closer to the mech the enemy gets the more spread you have to the point that if you do not fire and aim each one only half will hit do to spread.

For it to do anything as they have now TT has rules to account for it. Thus add the weight and crits to the weapon systems and you take care of some of the problems. This would allow for FPS style play and no COF. It would also make sure nothing except arms with all actuators can track the crosshairs and not all weapons would converge on the same spot negating all the boating problems.

Otherwise the cone is the best option out there to fix it.

However I am sorry to say an AC20 as seen on the hunchback should not ever be able to track the crosshairs and hit on point. Its a fixed weapon with no vertical or horizontal movement. It has never had such a thing and should be a perfect example of what I am talking about. For us to see what a hunchback with an ac20 would actually hit without this fake convergence I say that PGI make it fire straight and also put a tag laser texture that always fires at the point of convergence. This would illustrate the actual weapons spread. That would also show everyone how convergence does not work. That weapon has a convergence predetermined by its fitting. Many others on these mechs have the same thing. Most gauess rifle, PPC, and ac10-20 fittings would be like this. IN TT you can add more movement, you add something like 10% weight and a crit slot of two. This is also an option if you want the weapons to track the crosshair,

In MWO this can be done the same way with either the cone or the weapons firing at a predetermined range. This would allow you to make short medium and long range groups set to a predetermined range and that is the only location that would be pinpoint accurate. Every other range would have spread. That would go a long way to fixing the problem in the game without the need for the cone.

I on the other hand am fine with either fix. I am also very appreciative to all the people who have put so much good constructive critisism into this thread. DarkJaguar and Pht especially for trying to make this game fun again.

Edited by Sundervine, 22 July 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[Coolwhoami]

Pht, on 22 July 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

Why do you say this?

I say this because as argued later within, your position that this is better means of simulation is in fact not really the case, and therefore the feeling would be from the pilot's perspective that they are simply a driver for a self-aiming gun platform, at which point it removes a lot of the excitement from being in such a place to begin with.

Quote

Ok; you say they're not balanced.

Which ones aren't "balanced," and why is your definition of "balance' proper?

I'm not snarking you. I really want to know.

Everyone claims this. Nobody shows why this claim is anything more than a claim.

It is not balanced because individual weapons were and are not balanced against eachother, but rather using a battlevalue system in which a mech is given a combat worth based on a number of factors (Including piloting skill!!!). This means that unless you also implement such a system (which is not feasible, because trying to create teams of equivalent battle value would be ridiculous, and it would not account for the power of customized weapon load outs at all), you cannot have a balanced game. Furthermore, system upgrades (Like we have already seen with shs to dhs) are intended to in the battletech universe to almost always be straight upgrades, meaning that we will have an eternally cycling set of useless weapons as new systems are added on (It has already been extensively discussed and concluded that there is no place for SHS in this game now that DHS is in, which makes every mech that does not have it require a 1.5 m cbill cost). Some would argue that this is fine, but unless we are advancing stock mechs with these upgrades, newbies will always be at an eternal disadvantage when compared to vets, making the game unappealing to new blood.

Quote

Than you have to tell every armored combat gunner that they don't aim their unit's gun; that their aiming "really isn't a thing" - aka, NOTHING.

This is also like saying that a marine-scout-sniper doesn't aim, because the wind might be an external factor that could stop him from hitting his target.

I will likely end up repeating myself here, due to the nature of the reply, but someone shooting a rifle manually compensates for windage and distance, they do not fire at a target and have something arbitrarily decide based on a law of averages whether or not they hit. Their own ability to compensate for these factors determines this.

Certainly you could say that targeting system accommodates for this, and that system can operate a few different ways.

1. It can simple calculate the adjustments needed to enable a hit on a target, and you simply input what you want hit and where, and it can take care of that for you.
2. It can do what you are suggesting; you can fire, and the system will attempt to hit it, but in order for the system to maintain its ability to hit you must manually track the target. Enviromental factors are simulated by randomizing where you specifically hit. but to me that seems like an unnecessary pilot involvement, and indeed today we have such technology. Perhaps the systems in battletech are worse, or better, but you can certainly start to see why some things are as they are not because it is "realistic" but because it allows for a tabletop game to exist.
3. We can have what we have in mechwarrior games (MWO included), where we can assume to some extent that a targeting computer compensates for any outward factors, but cannot track, that must be done by the pilot. Extreme circumstances (jump jets) impact how stable/accurate the weapons are, but the pilot's skill is supreme in ensuring hits end up where they are desired.

The first is obviously undesirable, as it removes any sense that you are doing something other than moving the mech about. The second encourages the optimization of the CONDITIONS in which hits are most likely to hit. The third allows for variety: you can take safe shots stably, or you can take more difficult to make shots, which emphasize us as players in our ability to make them or not. Your system takes this away from players, and presumes instead that our shots will average out to certain value of hits. It removes the competitiveness from the game in favour of position optimization, and returns us back to the biggest I problem I have with your proposition: Are we not simply just actors in a multiplayer tabletop game that control a single mech? Why not just play tabletop at that point?

Quote

So, This is not "somewhat accurate to the lore."
IT is how the lore does it.
And we have confirmation from the people who make, maintain, and get paid to "do" the lore.
http://bg.battletech...is590#msg591660
The FPS does remove it. The pure FPS mechanic does NO simulation of any kind of how a battlemech actually handles it's weapons. ZERO. Mwo has only added the woefully inadequate seperate reticules and jumpjet shake. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Once again, we really don't know how battlemechs "actually" handle its weapons. We are simply simulating it: in a tabletop enviroment, we do it with dice. In a game with the perspective of a pilot, we can do with through aim. Both are adequate ways of simulation, they simple suit different styles of play.

Quote

The rules which describe how the 'mechs do comat in the lore; which give PREDICTABLE hit percentages based upon KNOWABLE conditions, conditions which can be CONTROLLED by player choices (skill). Now you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The modifiers in the game simply are a math tool to describe how whatever condtions affect a 'mechs ability to actually bring the weapons to bear. The exact same gripe applies to a full on top-flight physics engine; all it is is a fancier way to get the same end result - hit percentages based upon conditions when the shot is made.

This all gets at the same thing, so for simplicity I am grouping it. The problem (as previously mentioned) with conditional based systems is it does not at all encourage the player to be accurate, it encourages the player to create the most optimal conditions for which the dice work in their favor. it is here that, despite your insistent, the simulation absolutely fails: the player is not playing to feel like a pilot, they are playing to manipulate randomness. This is incredibly immersion breaking and unfun, and while involving player skill entirely emphasizes strategic play (which at high level play in mwo is incredibly important) over any ability for the player to "beat the odds", because the dice take that away.

To put it another way, we can go back to our rifle example. Say we had several shooters, all competing to hit a target accurately. What your system would do is decide automatically that all the shooters are the same, and essentially take away the individual's skill as part of the factor (or at least make it such an insignificant part of the contest that it is nearly irrelevant). The system we currently have lets accurate players BE accurate, not because the dice decide, but because THEY are able.

Quote

You automatically presume that the TT combat and the combat in the lore are mutually exclusive. They are not. Which is spelled out in black and white fact at the link to the BG.BT forums above by the line developer in the forum there specifically made for the people that run/make the lore to answer exactly those sorts of questions.

So? Are we then forever bound to rules made for a board game when determining whether a game is allowed? Clearly not, or we would not have the plethora of video game titles that completely ignore the often obtuse rule sets designed not to facilitate life accuracy but dice based gameplay. What you are arguing is that because the lore men say that the tabletop rules are king in determining lore accuracy (this is ridiculous, sorry), that we must therefore always defer to such rules when constructing a game that is not a tabletop one.

Quote

You seem quite frankly to be unhappy with even the IDEA that a battlemech from the setting actually matters in the process of how weapons fire is resolved. It's like you're presuming that you should be directly piloting a stack of guns. Not a mech that directly controls the guns.

Except the mech is not itself a unified system that you press buttons into and then it carries out instructions. it is made up of a number of different interacting systems. For the sake of ease of use and simulation, we have simply assumed that some of those systems work without player input and work reliably, because falling down all the time in a game is not very fun. We assume the computer can compensate for most environmental factors, because it allows the player to be the key to success or failure regarding combat, not a minor controller of a series of dice rolls. We simplify the aiming to be to two reticles, because attempting to control more is overwhelming and difficult. We do these things because we want a game that is fun to play while creating a sense by which my success or failure is due to me, not due to factors out of my control. Dice ALWAYS take away control.

[Sundervine]

I believe convergence would be the best fix for CoolwhoamI then. By what he says here he could absolutly understand how the ac20 on a hunchback for example could only hit at a certain range spot on and everywhere else it would be offset one way of the other. This would allow him to fire it seperatly and still hit dead on without the rest of the weapons then fire the others after adjusting back. This fixes for skill and breaks alpha striking. I say two wins in one.

Also in TT core 1 heatsink depletes only .1 heat per second. Fix this stat and you also fix alot of alpha problems. Doubles only disipate .2. Not even 1.4 like currently implemented. Even doubling these values would go along way to also negating boating high heat weapons.

[Wales Grey]

Sundervine, on 22 July 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Also in TT core 1 heatsink depletes only .1 heat per second. Fix this stat and you also fix alot of alpha problems. Doubles only disipate .2. Not even 1.4 like currently implemented. Even doubling these values would go along way to also negating boating high heat weapons.

Unfortunately, this would have the net effect of slowing down the pace of a match to a crawl with the current weapon stats, an obviously undesirable outcome for a game as arcadey as MWO.

Regarding TT rules, many people seem to forget is that tabletop rules are not a physics simulator, they are an abstraction. A turn in Battletech is an abstraction of the events that occur over a sixty second period. Nowhere in the lore does it say that a PPC only fires once every sixty seconds, or that all AC/20s are massive 240mm sawed-off howitzers. (They specifically list the AC/20 as having calibers ranging from 25mm all the way up to 203mm, but having a similar net effect based on rate of fire, type of ammunition, etc.)

Instead, the rules represent the net effect of the actions during that sixty-second window. A "missed" attack roll doesn't necessarily mean that your pilot didn't hit, it simply means that your attack was not effective in damaging the opponent in any noticeable way. Firing a PPC at a target through woods and missing could be anything from a missed shot, to the trees blocking your shot, to a targeting computer foul-up, to a hit that doesn't inflict more than cosmetic damage, or any other plausible scenario. (Needs 3, rolls 2: Pilot has a freak narcoleptic fit seconds before pulling the trigger)

Edited by Wales Grey, 22 July 2013 - 08:49 PM.

[Sundervine]

Actually it does, the fire rate of each of the main weapons systems: (all listed in seconds)
Small laser: 5
Medium Laser: 5
Large Laser: 7.5
ER Large Laser 10

PPC: 10

AC/2: 2.5
AC/5: 5
Ultra Ac/5: 5
AC/10: 5
Ac/20: 7.5
Gauss Rifle: 7.5

All SRM weapons: 5
All LRM weapons: 7.5

Thus I fail to see the point were real time has not already been thought out.
If you want faster paced combat you can even half these numbers and it would be fine, I do not see the need in doing so> Battletech is one of the only games that has had so many rules written and fleshed out with fluff that almost no situation cannot be found and delt with in the rules.

While we are at it, they have rules for partial cover, firing over cover, indirect fire, direct fire, bracing, prone, fire, and gravity just to name a few. They also have rules for all manner of things you would not even think of like taking the protection off a PPC and allowing it to fire within its minimum range. All this and more is yours 10 years ago in TT! Just making a joke ^^ so that you know there is no hard feeling to any of you, only the want to make this game better.

Edited by Sundervine, 22 July 2013 - 09:10 PM.

[Wales Grey]

I'm curious as to your source for the weapon ROF times, especially the autocannons, as TechManual describes autocannons thus:

Techmanual, p. 207 said:

While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage.

Edited by Wales Grey, 22 July 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[Sundervine]

TT rules had this since 1991 solaris first print.

Which by the way predated the majority of the fluff printed and should be considered part of the base Battletech rules. It is some of the older rules.

Btw since you are interested other things that were added just in this one supplement:
1: Hot firing LRM's because the reason they do no damage at minimum range is there is a delay in arming the warhead. This in TT can be disabled.
2: TICS: Target interlock circuits, this is actually the grouping that MWO uses. It is in this that without this you can only fire one weapons system at a time. Same as MWO however you can only have A,B, and C in TT. Dont forget this was created in 1991 before you would have thought about it.
3: Aimed and careful aim shots.

Dont forget all this way back in 1991.

Edited by Sundervine, 23 July 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 22 July 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

PS. You should know that blinkin is bearing a grudge against me... ever since I agreed with him on a certain topic and than dared to ask him some specific questions. He isn't anything like a neutral observer at all.

yes i am directly quoting him in an evil and nefarious manner.

never said i was neutral. i think you are incredibly self absorbed and i am quite certain that regardless of what evidence i produced you would continue to hide in your little world. i could probably find video of Jordan Weisman outright declaring you to be an ignorant moron and it wouldn't change a thing.

my goal is to shine as much light as possible on your views so people know exactly what you are all about. if they truly agree then they can share that little shrine you have erected to yourself with you, and we will know who they are. everyone else will know all of the facts before stepping into something they didn't really agree with.

to be honest i don't even remember the agreement. i do remember reading back later and figuring out what i misread initially, but before i figured that out i got to know you and properly detest you for the person you really are.

Sundervine, on 22 July 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

TT rules had this since 1991 solaris first print.

Which by the way predated the majority of the fluff printed and should be considered part of the base Battletech rules. It is some of the older rules.

Btw since you are interested other things that were added just in this one supplement:
1: Hot firing LRM's because the reason they do no damage at minimum range is there is a delay in arming the warhead. This in TT can be disabled.
2: TICS: Target interlock circuits, this is actually the grouping that MWO. It is in this that you can only fire one weapons system at a time without it. Same as MWO however you can only have A,B, and C in TT. Dont forget this was created in 1991 before you would have thought about it. Again TT rules thought about it.
3: Aimed and careful aim shots.

Also dont forget .1 heat disipation and .2 also worked here fine, dont forget 1991.

the question is, does it pass the Pht "legit" test^TM

[Magicbullet141]

Why can't they balance this game? Its an EASY question to answer:
THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE BATTLETECH RULESET

Why not? I have no idea! The battletech ruleset has had over 30 years of tweaking and balancing, why must they start from scratch for?!

[Coolwhoami]

Magicbullet141, on 22 July 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Why can't they balance this game? Its an EASY question to answer:
THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE BATTLETECH RULESET

Why not? I have no idea! The battletech ruleset has had over 30 years of tweaking and balancing, why must they start from scratch for?!

Resolve the issue of having weapons direct fire and remain balance when battletech rules use dice. Without implementing a system that just makes this tabletop from a first person perspective. Then you might start to understand why we are where we are, and why using such rules is incredibly foolish.

[blinkin]

Magicbullet141, on 22 July 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Why can't they balance this game? Its an EASY question to answer:
THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE BATTLETECH RULESET

Why not? I have no idea! The battletech ruleset has had over 30 years of tweaking and balancing, why must they start from scratch for?!

actually most of the way through closed beta they kept weapon stats to table top values. it was in early open beta where they finally declared it a lost cause and started the hardcore shift away from "the rules". missiles did get hit in closed beta fairly quickly, but in almost every case INCLUDING double heat sinks they tried the table top values first.

table top rules are a great place to start, but it has been proven many times over that pure TT stats do not always work in this environment.

Edited by blinkin, 22 July 2013 - 11:30 PM.

[AndyHill]

But is the problem in the numbers ()weapons balanced between each other) or the environment that allows for stuff that would break the TT game as well as the simulation?

...

Anyway, following the conversation of Pht et al. I can't help thinking of real world battlemechs that function exactly the way Pht is suggesting. I can only assume he got his inspiration from knowledge about armored warfare, but since others may not be as knowledgeable, a nice video introduction might be in order. The following is a short clip from software used to train real tank gunners. What's going on in the video is the gunner lasing the target for range, following it with the sight at constant speed to determine the relative motion of the target and possibly lasing it again (I don't remember the official procedure exactly). When he pulls the trigger the targeting computer calculates and takes the shot.



With a targeting computer and cone of fire it's still not only a skill but also a full time job. In fact, modern day IC 'mechs usually have a crew of four to handle all the functions. With the current pace of MWO combat you'd be better off just taking potshots and hoping to get lucky.

I don't know if MWO should have 'mech functionality simulation in this manner (haven't really thought about it that much yet) or randomization (I personally don't like it in games like WoT, I'd have to see some vital changes first (removal of group fire, global cooldowns) to see if it's necessary), but those are just personal opinions, not game design issues. Anyway, the video might be interesting to many, since it gives a good idea on how modern day 'mechs work.

Edited by AndyHill, 23 July 2013 - 02:16 AM.

[Syllogy]

Magicbullet141, on 22 July 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Why can't they balance this game? Its an EASY question to answer:
THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE BATTLETECH RULESET

Why not? I have no idea! The battletech ruleset has had over 30 years of tweaking and balancing, why must they start from scratch for?!

When the creators of the Battletech all agree that the ruleset is rubbish and needs to be completely torn down and built again, it's a pretty sure sign that the rules are not balanced in any sense of the word.

Also, you are trying to take a board game and turn it into an FPS. Dice rolls and +/- bonuses don't translate to real human skill, genius.

Edited by Syllogy, 23 July 2013 - 06:53 AM.