721 replies to this topic

[The Cheese]

stjobe, on 02 July 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

This is so wrong it hurts. Just about every skill-based activity there is, be it in a computer game or in real life, have elements of randomness. True skill lies in compensating for and adjusting to that randomness - like a gust of wind over a golf course, or the unevenness of the ice on a hockey rink, or the bounce of the ball on a soccer pitch.

This is so wrong it hurts. By definition, something that is random cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be adjusted for.

A newbie golfer may be affected by that gust of wind, but an experienced player will anticipate the weather and adjust for it because they've learned how to. Ice on hockey rinks is smoothed before a game, and professional players are intimately aware of its condition during a game and how that affects play. Likewise for a soccer field. The point is that these so called "random" factors are only random up to the point where they are perceived, and a skilled player will be able to recognise them and act to lessen their effects.

We're not talking about implementing a factor that can be read and acted upon. We're talking about (as evidenced by PGI's implementation of the jumpjet shake effect) true random effects. You cannot predict where your shot will go when you use the jets. The only way to adjust for this effect is to not be using the jets. That is, to remove the random effect entirely.

As I said, if you implement a random effect, people will just use whatever is least affected by it. This has been proven by the high-alpha snipe meta. There are very few jump snipers anymore. The people who persist with the high alpha sniping have almost ALL moved over to ground based sniping. Why? Because the jump jets lead to unreliable results. The workaround? Don't use jump jets.

If they implement a truly random COF for ballistics, people will just boat lasers. Are they going to make those spray all over the place too?

Putting a blanket random effect on weapon aim will just shift the balance from high-alpha to high DPS. A better solution would be to implement a system where both are viable in certain circumstances, and choosing one or the other or a mix between the two takes actual consideration.

stjobe, on 02 July 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

If you don't understand why having pin-point accuracy in a game where all other variables are based on random hit chance is bad, I suggest you read some of the very many threads there have been about these issues.

There is nothing wrong with being able to put a single shot exactly where you want it. The problem revolves around how easy it is to do so.

Edited by The Cheese, 02 July 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[MasterErrant]

Aullido, on 01 July 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

I don't mind wait 10 seconds for shot. In fact I will love it. For me Mechwarrior was a slow dance where every shot matters. I barely touched MW4, it didn't have the feeling and MWO either.

To PGI:

Implement joystick exclusive matches. I miss its use where stick and throttle made the difference, besides crappy aiming could bring back some of the old gameplay.

heat dps proportionally consistant with TT would be better. strict consistancy would make the game terrible slow. but set to a 3-5 second round (for wepond heat cycleing only)

convergence percision mass targeting is even worse not.

[DarkJaguar]

peerless, on 02 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

You know I generally agee with you... but I'm going to pull a Justin Allard and turn on you for a bit.

Nice name drop, and sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your post. I wanted to pull it into a proper text editor and give it the reading and attention it deserves.

peerless, on 02 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Your post has a few problems in getting its point across. Firstly, your thread title kind of sucks. It doesn't sum up the point of your thread while being a tad condescending to the developers(who may or may not deserve your ire, thats not the point). They have little reason to want to read this thread.

Yeah, I suck at thread titles. It does not help that I am very frustrated with this game right now. I've been playing Battletech and Mechwarrior since Mechwarrior2 came out, and this game has the WORST feel of any mech game to date. As for the second point in this paragraph, they have little reason to read any thread. I didn't write this ever expecting anyone on PGI to read it. I wrote it to vent and to scream and point out the iceberg that PGI seems to be steering us all toward.

peerless, on 02 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Your thread has too many ideas. It throws numbers at people who most likely don't want to read spreadsheets and then gives them a fantastic excuse not to read them with your detailed but less provable ending. Although you see them as connected(and they can be) the first portion of the OP is able to be independent of the second portion. It should really be 2 or 3 threads if you want to get support. Don't let one idea hold back the other.

Yes, it is a lot of information, but balance is so messed up that it needs a complete rewrite, and a complete rewrite by necessity will be complex. I'd love to make 2 or 3 threads about these ideas, and maybe I will once this thread has run it's course. My favorite bit of this thread is reading the posts and finding out what people don't understand, and then trying to find a way to explain it.

peerless, on 02 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Normalization of numbers really needs to happen. A medium laser that feels like a Large Laser that generates heat like 2 "proper" PPC's is distinctly not a medium laser. You explain how MWO isn't using tabletop numbers but by adjusting the MWO dps instead of the TT dps, you didn't provide people of what those numbers should look like compared to what they are used to.

I thought I did that by putting the numbers side by side in the illustrations? Do you have a request for some sort of graphic i can make that would convey this better?

peerless, on 02 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Convergence... I'm against screwing with convergence more than they already have until the weapons feel like the weapons they are named after. We may have a very different experience under those values. I'm also against cones of fire for anything that shoots in one click. There are many ways to mess with aim. I'd save (very gentle) RNG cones for Ultras and RACs, personally. As for the energy output limits, you won't find that in fluff(Fusion generates way more power than a mech needs pretty much ever) but it would really only "fix" PPC's. I'm not sure its worth implementing just for that instead of adjusting PPC's to more appropriate values.

Convergence is an issue, and it's a big one. This game can never be balanced as long as all weapons converge on a singular point. When that condition exists, it's not about the best tactics or teamwork, the game becomes about the most energy hardpoints that you can stuff PPCs into. In all honesty, most of my OP would be completely moot if PGI had selected a different hardpoint system (Small, Medium, Large, Main Gun?) but they opted for a weapon type system. As disruptive as my ideas may be, I think they are less disruptive than a weapon size hardpoint system. As to the cone of fire, that is a believeable and realistic way to try and alleviate SOME of the problems with convergence. No weapon will hit the exact aiming point 200m away after it's mount has been jostled by a 50 ton mech running across rough ground and taking Megajoule hits of kinetic energy to the frame. If any one thing were taken from my OP, I would hope it is the SLIGHT randomization of the weapon impacts. A quarter of a degree is the MOST it would take (even less on some of the bigger weapons), that is a very miniscule amount of randomness that can be explained away with ease. The energy limits were just an idea I was tossing around, I think it would be kind of neat, but I could take it or leave it. (Think about it though, each chassis and weapon has a power consumption rating, every engine has a power output. That could lead to a very interesting mechanic!)

peerless, on 02 July 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

Remember this thread has 4 states of approval... possibly 6. I like/hate the numbers, I like/hate the convergence and maybe I like/hate the power thing. Thats a lot of different opinions to debate in one thread is the main point I'm getting at I think.

Thank you for taking the time to read, understand and respond. Again, I know it's a ton of information, a ton of things to agree with or disagree with, but short of me starting a blog, I don't have a better way to convey this currently (Note to self: start an MWO blog...)

Edited by DarkJaguar, 02 July 2013 - 06:06 PM.

[Grazly]

I agree 1000% with this.

[FireSlade]

I think the power output would be a fun idea to play with. Put a poll up for it and you will have my vote. As for the other things I understand that we need something on their end in terms of balancing but as for how PGI pulls it off, I do not know. I know TT is balanced and they have had a long time to do that, but it will not work transferring over. TT balances based on the tools/circumstances available but that would not be the case in MWO. I think the heat nerf was long overdue and a step in the right direction. I cannot wait to see what the boating heat penalty will do for balance even though I am afraid that it will hurt some balanced designs. There is a lot ideas that I would love to see implemented especially a convergence fix which I think will fix everything but missile boats.

[DarkJaguar]

FireSlade, on 02 July 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

I think the power output would be a fun idea to play with. Put a poll up for it and you will have my vote. As for the other things I understand that we need something on their end in terms of balancing but as for how PGI pulls it off, I do not know. I know TT is balanced and they have had a long time to do that, but it will not work transferring over. TT balances based on the tools/circumstances available but that would not be the case in MWO. I think the heat nerf was long overdue and a step in the right direction. I cannot wait to see what the boating heat penalty will do for balance even though I am afraid that it will hurt some balanced designs. There is a lot ideas that I would love to see implemented especially a convergence fix which I think will fix everything but missile boats.

I'll toss up a poll for it in a bit. Once this thread has completely run it's course I'll have a bit more ammo to make some follow on threads, discussing each topic individually.

[stjobe]

The Cheese, on 02 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

This is so wrong it hurts. By definition, something that is random cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be adjusted for.

A newbie golfer may be affected by that gust of wind, but an experienced player will anticipate the weather and adjust for it because they've learned how to. Ice on hockey rinks is smoothed before a game, and professional players are intimately aware of its condition during a game and how that affects play. Likewise for a soccer field. The point is that these so called "random" factors are only random up to the point where they are perceived, and a skilled player will be able to recognise them and act to lessen their effects.

If you think golf, ice hockey, or soccer (or any other professional sport for that matter) isn't affected by randomness to a certain degree, I seriously doubt you've ever watched any games, much less tried playing yourself. As I said, what makes the pro players pro is that they have the ability to perform despite these random events.

The Cheese, on 02 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

We're not talking about implementing a factor that can be read and acted upon. We're talking about (as evidenced by PGI's implementation of the jumpjet shake effect) true random effects. You cannot predict where your shot will go when you use the jets. The only way to adjust for this effect is to not be using the jets. That is, to remove the random effect entirely.

As I said, if you implement a random effect, people will just use whatever is least affected by it. This has been proven by the high-alpha snipe meta. There are very few jump snipers anymore. The people who persist with the high alpha sniping have almost ALL moved over to ground based sniping. Why? Because the jump jets lead to unreliable results. The workaround? Don't use jump jets.

If they implement a truly random COF for ballistics, people will just boat lasers. Are they going to make those spray all over the place too?

Again, nobody is arguing total randomness; most suggestions I've seen are talking about a small amount of randomness that grows bigger with e.g. movement, and smaller by standing still; grows with rising heat, and shrinks with lower heat levels. The player will at all times be in control over how much randomness he experiences. A stationary, cool 'mech would be as perfect a firing platform as one could ask for, but one running at max speed over uneven terrain, perhaps also jump-jetting, would not be the perfect firing platform it is today.

It's not an uncommon feature of modern FPS games to have a cone of fire (at the very least for full-auto fire) and a "breath shake" for sniping weapons. I don't understand why some people think it such anathema to introduce a similar feature into MWO. It doesn't take your skill away, it makes it more pronounced.

The Cheese, on 02 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Putting a blanket random effect on weapon aim will just shift the balance from high-alpha to high DPS. A better solution would be to implement a system where both are viable in certain circumstances, and choosing one or the other or a mix between the two takes actual consideration.

Since alpha is king and DPS is worthless today, I'm not at all opposed to at least trying a DPS game instead of the current one-shot circus.

The Cheese, on 02 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with being able to put a single shot exactly where you want it. The problem revolves around how easy it is to do so.

The problem actually is that you can put ALL your shots exactly where you want them, down to the pixel.

That is not how the BattleTech universe is supposed to work, and all other values (damage, heat, armour, you name it - basically any TT values still in MWO) were balanced from the understanding that hit allocation was random. A 6-weapon alpha would have to be exceedingly lucky to put more than two shots in the same location - if even all weapons hit the target (as each weapon had a separate to-hit roll). In the current MWO, all weapons in that six-weapon alpha automatically hits the same location without any effort on the player's part. Aim, pull trigger, all weapons hit the same pixel.

So yeah. Slower convergence or cone of fire, perhaps both. Something needs to be done to remove the pin-point alphaing we're currently suffering under.

And as a final kind of sidenote: It's the ballistic weapons that are the main culprit, since they do all their damage in one hit. If you make them burst-fire instead (including the PPC), a lot of the pin-point problems go away.

[The Cheese]

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

If you think golf, ice hockey, or soccer (or any other professional sport for that matter) isn't affected by randomness to a certain degree, I seriously doubt you've ever watched any games, much less tried playing yourself. As I said, what makes the pro players pro is that they have the ability to perform despite these random events.

Like I said. These events you're referring to are only 'random' up to the point where they are perceived by the player. At this point, the player predicts (probably reflexively) the effects of the event and acts accordingly. An experienced player knows better than a new player how best to respond, but the response is always based upon an expectation of these events proceeding a certain way.

The point here is that the events all lead to an expected result. Actual randomness, where one event has no connection with the one that came before or the one that will come after, like I would expect to see here(based on the JJ shake), does not, and therefore can't be adjusted for. I suppose what I'm worried about here is that they'll take "random" literally, which does nothing to improve the quality of the game.

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Again, nobody is arguing total randomness; most suggestions I've seen are talking about a small amount of randomness that grows bigger with e.g. movement, and smaller by standing still; grows with rising heat, and shrinks with lower heat levels. The player will at all times be in control over how much randomness he experiences. A stationary, cool 'mech would be as perfect a firing platform as one could ask for, but one running at max speed over uneven terrain, perhaps also jump-jetting, would not be the perfect firing platform it is today.

I realise at this point that I'm arguing semantics, but as soon as you have an something that you can evaluate and predict an outcome, it aint' random no more. In the description you gave there, how accurate is the stationary, cool mech? Is it able to hit a pebble at 1000m with a single Gauss round?

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

It's not an uncommon feature of modern FPS games to have a cone of fire (at the very least for full-auto fire) and a "breath shake" for sniping weapons. I don't understand why some people think it such anathema to introduce a similar feature into MWO. It doesn't take your skill away, it makes it more pronounced.

The same thing happens in all of those games where they use a cone of fire. People who want to win just pick the weapon that is least affected by it, meanwhile everyone else complains that they're a cheesy scrub.

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

Since alpha is king and DPS is worthless today, I'm not at all opposed to at least trying a DPS game instead of the current one-shot circus.

I'm not opposed to trying it either. I'd love to be able to pull out my C1 again. I was just pointing out that giving everything a spread is just going to shift the focus on to the high DPS weapons, which people will complain about just as much as what we've got now. That's why I'd like to have them both be viable.

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

The problem actually is that you can put ALL your shots exactly where you want them, down to the pixel.

Right, and I agree to the point where you shouldn't be able to put them all right where you want them at the same time. I do think that you should be able to put an individual shot exactly where you want it, and that's where people seem to disagree.

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

That is not how the BattleTech universe is supposed to work, and all other values (damage, heat, armour, you name it - basically any TT values still in MWO) were balanced from the understanding that hit allocation was random. A 6-weapon alpha would have to be exceedingly lucky to put more than two shots in the same location - if even all weapons hit the target (as each weapon had a separate to-hit roll). In the current MWO, all weapons in that six-weapon alpha automatically hits the same location without any effort on the player's part. Aim, pull trigger, all weapons hit the same pixel.

And this is exactly why we should scrap the TT numbers and make something specially constructed for this game. Get the BattleTech Universe feel without being hamstrung with some numbers that were specifically designed and balanced for a completely different game type.

stjobe, on 03 July 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

And as a final kind of sidenote: It's the ballistic weapons that are the main culprit, since they do all their damage in one hit. If you make them burst-fire instead (including the PPC), a lot of the pin-point problems go away.

Agreed, however making all of the ballistic weapons burst fire does homogenize them to an extent.

[jeffsw6]

TheFlyingScotsman, on 02 July 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

OP cannot possibly be more correct. MWO is not BT, it's just a bastardization of the franchise at this point.

BT is not meant to be an FPS. I do not understand what you are complaining about. TT values simply do not work in an FPS.

lartfor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

OP claiming mwo dmg values are broken because they don't use TT = OP needs to stop posting.

TT numbers are not only badly balanced for a TT game, they are also NEVER EVER EVER going to work in a mmo fps.

At this point, I really wish PGI would get that public test server up and put TT values in for all the armaments for a week or two, just to show all the fools who keep advocating it how fantastically broken it would be.

The Cheese, on 02 July 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with being able to put a single shot exactly where you want it. The problem revolves around how easy it is to do so.

I think cone-of-fire would probably be a bad change, but "the problem" really is that extreme-range weapons are better than brawling weapons.

When AC/40 Jagermechs were in style people were frustrated with it (before adapting) but I don't remember a ton of threads bitching about how bad it was that they can land 40pts of damage in the same place. Why? Because they can't do it at range. Hitting a moving target at 250m with an AC/20 is not easy because of the projectile speed. Yeah, you can do it most of the time to a sufficiently large or slow opponent, but it may not land on their CT where you want it, sometimes you will miss, and almost always, it will take you a bit longer to take that shot because you have to lead the target.

Now try hitting someone with an AC/20 at 600m. You'll probably miss, and even if you don't, the weapon won't do much damage. Besides that, you expend ammo, so you won't waste it on bad 600m shots, because AC/20 ammo is precious!

The problem is not game mechanics. It is simple weapon variables that can easily be changed. Fix PPCs (and Gauss Rifles) and the game will improve. It really is that simple.

[stjobe]

The Cheese, on 03 July 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

And this is exactly why we should scrap the TT numbers and make something specially constructed for this game. Get the BattleTech Universe feel without being hamstrung with some numbers that were specifically designed and balanced for a completely different game type.

Since it seems that we're drawing close to actual agreement, I'll just go ahead and say that the latter part of this is exactly what I want; I want a game with "the BattleTech Universe feel", and I don't care much how it's achieved. If TT values get us there, by all means use them; they're intimately familiar to me. But if we get closer to a BTU feel by scrapping them and using other values, heck, I'm glad to see them go.

The Cheese, on 03 July 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

Agreed, however making all of the ballistic weapons burst fire does homogenize them to an extent.

It would, but at this point I'm of the opinion that it's better than them being just plain superior to the energy and missile weapons, which do spread their damage (either through beam duration or missile spread).

If all weapon types spread their damage to some degree, it wouldn't be such a no-brainer to pack the large ballistics in as large numbers as you could (please note that for these purposes the PPC is a ballistic weapon).

[Victor Morson]

First off I think trying to translate the hard rules is a really bad idea. My primary interest in the OP is with taking the spirit of the heat rules, and using them in a sim environment - one that they seem tailor made to be in.

Increased to-hit with heat = A wider reticle & slower torso / arm movement
Increased heat causes engine slowdown = Speed gets lost the hotter you get, possibly scaled to class

You don't need to quote the CBT rules on heat scales to take these ideas with their roots in the game and apply them to MW:O, where I think they would fit in well.

[jeffsw6]

If high heat improves your chance-to-miss (gives you a cone-of-fire) then it will buff snipers! A 4-6 PPC Stalker can basically sit at 0% heat for most of the game. The only reason heat matters to him, at all, is if he gets a follow-up shot after he takes his first one at an opponent.

Heat worsening your chance-to-hit will make high alphas even MORE important in brawling, too. There will be even more incentive to do as much damage as possible on your first hit, and then retreat, because your second hit is less likely to strike the target.

Forget about duking it out in a 17 DHS AS7-D-DC that can endure a long battle on a hot map. The mechs capable of mounting AC/20s will be an even easier choice for brawling than they are today, and lasers will be worse for brawling.

Edited by jeffsw6, 03 July 2013 - 05:09 AM.

[Aym]

Lol@ TT = Balance

[Jonny Taco]

Aym, on 03 July 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Lol@ TT = Balance

I know right?

So many of these Mindless, Neckbeard, super nerd, TT fanois treat the TT game as some kind of holy bible. They manage to completely ignore the fact that the TT is "simulating" a battle between 2 or more mechs based on dice roles and a hexagrid gameboard. How anyone can somehow justify using these mechanics and values in a MMO FPS/sim is beyond mind boggling.

There are just so many issues in this game that stem from the usage of TT values in the game's developement. The biggest one that seems to be causing the most issues at the moment is the braindead fitting system that we currently have. Introducing some restrictions involving maximum size for each weapon hardpoint is a mindnumbingly simple solution and I honestly find it kind of insulting it never even got a mention especially because hoards of CB testers were suggesting it like 10+ months ago... "But NOOO, it's not how it is in the TT so it would ruint he game!" /facepalm

Furthermore, as you stated, Battletech was not even a well balanced or overly high quality TT game anyway... (omg stone me to death!) Emulating the Battletech lore/feel is what mwo should be trying to do, not re-creating a TT game in a first person setting...

Edited by lartfor, 03 July 2013 - 06:54 AM.

[Mechteric]

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 03 July 2013 - 07:22 AM.

[Nightstaker]

Im sure Im like most of you here.
I did a search for MechWarrior game and found a MW5 in build website with a nice video which is now MWO. I LOVED the MW games, Ive got every one for the PC the ONLY reason I got the Legendary Founder pack was because I wanted this game to be great, every time PGI say they are going to do something they fail us. CW, 12 mans the dates we were given have come and gone and yet we are still here looking for that little ray of light at the end of a very, very, very, very long tunnel. No matter what we say or do PGI will carry on doing what they are doing do they listen to us???? maybe in a little way but at the end of the day this is a world of tanks with mechs.

The game goes "live" around 21st September and all we have to show for is a broken game with to many bugs to fix in time, weekly updates have come and gone, time between patches have increased we get less and less but PGI still want our money to test their game. Want to paint your mech that's 500-1200MC (real money) this last patch they gave us the ability to paint our Jenner founders mech this was a bone they threw us to keep us here. PGI don't give a rats arse about us they just want to keep us hanging on, taking our money while they rob us.

The OP may have good points but PGI wont listen, they will stick their head up their arse's and carry on doing what they are doing.

[Zyllos]

jeffsw6, on 03 July 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

If high heat improves your chance-to-miss (gives you a cone-of-fire) then it will buff snipers! A 4-6 PPC Stalker can basically sit at 0% heat for most of the game. The only reason heat matters to him, at all, is if he gets a follow-up shot after he takes his first one at an opponent.

Heat worsening your chance-to-hit will make high alphas even MORE important in brawling, too. There will be even more incentive to do as much damage as possible on your first hit, and then retreat, because your second hit is less likely to strike the target.

Forget about duking it out in a 17 DHS AS7-D-DC that can endure a long battle on a hot map. The mechs capable of mounting AC/20s will be an even easier choice for brawling than they are today, and lasers will be worse for brawling.

I think that is becuase your applying the penalty backwards.

You should always add the penalty values first then fire.

That means if you have 20+ heat, you get a CoF. Which then means that if your at 0 heat, and you fire 3 PPCs for 24 heat, that means those 3 PPCs you just fired will produce a CoF.

If you chain fire those PPCs to never go over 20 heat, so say you fire 2 of them, for 16 heat, then wait until it goes down to 12 heat, then fire again, you will never go into CoF due to high heat.

Just taking the above example, you now force players to chain fire multiple weapons to avoid a CoF, no matter if your alpha striking or not.

There are two problems with the current alpha meta:

• Ease of pin point damage
  
• Control of incoming damage without losing damage

The first problem is obvious but the second problem is harder to see. One good reason for alpha striking your weapons is that it allows you to dodge/duck into cover without losing DPS.

The game needs to be set up to enforce the idea that you have to make a choice between continuing to deal damage to a target or take the time to torso twist to control damage.

Then, when making the choice between firing all your weapons at the same time (so that you can torso twist) vs chain firing, you will lose some control over aimed shots, thus will spread your damage out more against the target.

[Pht]

lartfor, on 02 July 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

In conclusion... Suggesting TT dps values for a fps is bad and you should feel bad.

The MW video game genre is not an fps.

It is an armored combat simulator.

[Pht]

lartfor, on 03 July 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

So many of these Mindless, Neckbeard, super nerd, TT fanois treat the TT game as some kind of holy bible. They manage to completely ignore the fact that the TT is "simulating" a battle between 2 or more mechs based on dice roles and a hexagrid gameboard. How anyone can somehow justify using these mechanics and values in a MMO FPS/sim is beyond mind boggling.

... and yet you nor nobody else on these forums has ever been able to offer a single simple logical demonstration of why the TT system can't convert to realtime.

All anyone does is say the equivalent of "but ... DICE! TURN BASED!" and nobody even bothers to think they need to show how their argument is valid.

Not even something blindingly simple in form, like, say:

all men are mortal

socrates is a man

therefore, socrates is mortal

Quote

There are just so many issues in this game that stem from the usage of TT values in the game's developement.

Are you even familar with the combat system in the TT? If you are, could you enlighten us as to which specific rules are bad and why they are? ... or should we just take your word on the topic and not do any more thinking on the topic?

Quote

The biggest one that seems to be causing the most issues at the moment is the braindead fitting system that we currently have. Introducing some restrictions involving maximum size for each weapon hardpoint is a mindnumbingly simple solution and I honestly find it kind of insulting it never even got a mention especially because hoards of CB testers were suggesting it like 10+ months ago... "But NOOO, it's not how it is in the TT so it would ruint he game!" /facepalm

Nonsense. I have been suggesting a properly restricted mechlab since the forums went up and I was in the closed beta. Said suggestion is still linked in my sig line... and the mechlab setup I've been suggesting is built from the TT system and the Lore (ps. the construction rules are CONSTRUCTION rules, not CUSTOMIZATION rules)

Quote

Furthermore, as you stated, Battletech was not even a well balanced or overly high quality TT game anyway...

The bt TT game is fine. Some people just like to whine or exploit the fact that EVERY gaming system has flaws to try and give some validity to their dislike of the TT.

Some people need to learn to just admit "I just don't like it" and get over it.

Quote

Emulating the Battletech lore/feel is what mwo should be trying to do, not re-creating a TT game in a first person setting...

The battletech lore was specifically controlled and set by the TT game: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

The novels and the lore are not opposed to the TT.

Edited by Pht, 03 July 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[stjobe]

Pht, on 03 July 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

(ps. the construction rules are CONSTRUCTION rules, not CUSTOMIZATION rules)

I think this is too important to be put as an aside in parenthesis.

The construction rules are way more lenient than the customization rules - the customization rules have limits on just what you can change, it has a built-in chance of a swapped-out weapon having glitches, it has sky-high costs in both C-Bills and time for doing most anything, and so on and so forth. A MechLab founded on the customization rules instead of the construction rules would be very interesting to see.