721 replies to this topic

[Helmer]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

... and some interpretations can be true. Others can be false. There is an objective baseline from which to judge these things.

Agreed. Many people reference Mechwarrior Living Legends as a wonderful Mechwarrior experience, yet the values and systems used varied wildly from what TT and other versions used. Others say Mechwarrior: Mercenaries was their favorite Mechwarrior experience, yet it uses a similar hardpoint system .
Its a semantic argument about what is or is not Mechwarrior.

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but another thing that is bothering me...Missiles.

Why do missiles do splash damage at all? They're shaped charge weapons, they deal damage in a pencil thin zone directly in front of the warhead. Splash damage really should be removed at well, it doesn't feel right and makes the missiles more powerful than they should be.

I've wondered that myself. It seems to be whats causing a lot of issues, and it does not currently seem to be needed. I can only assume they have some use for it in the future.





Cheers.

Edited by Helmer, 07 July 2013 - 12:22 PM.
Proof reading is OP.

[MustrumRidcully]

MavRCK, on 07 July 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Random convergence -- NERF SKILL!!!!!!!

Sigh... stupid is as stupid does.

It's just a different type of skill nerfing. Currently skill is nerfed by easy-mode alpha strikes. No one needs to be great at aiming, since you have 3-4 seconds between your alpha strikes anyway. No need to learn to shoot fast and under pressure, delivering 3-4 shots in 2 seconds with precision.

Might as well add cone of fire, since real skill isn't rewarded, but instead balance is broken by boating.

[DarkJaguar]

peerless, on 07 July 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Okay, you're saying the same thing basically. That translation is a lot like saying I'm driving down the road at 0 mph and the world is rolling passed me at 60 mph but I see its trying to say the same thing. Potato Patato I guess.

Potatoes are easier to distinguish with pictures than by name!

[Scarcer]

I full heartedly believe that PGI should stick to the TT rules; or at the least emulate MW4 values since that game was a balanced combat experience.

It would then become very easy to balance the game using broad values such as:

Heat Capacity
Heat Disipation

When that is centered in, they can further balance weapons by modifying values such as:

Cool Down Reduction
Flight Path
Splash Damage

Rename MG to HMG

Then give all weapons the same critical destruction value so they have the same chance of being destroyed in combat. (This wouldn't be an issue if they were balanced.)

The weapons were far more balanced in closed beta.

[MustrumRidcully]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Interesting idea, but I still feel it fails to address the weapons balance problem. Sure, I have to take two shots with the 4PPC stalker now, but I'm still dealing 120 damage in 10 seconds instead of 40.

It doesn't really matter if you deal 40 or 120 damage in 10 seconds. If it's too much damage we can always reduce it, or increase armour.

The deal is more the differences between the weapons.
With 4 PPCs, I can deliver 120 damage with 3 shots.
With, say, 2 AC/10s and 2 PPCs, I can deliver 120 damage with 3 shots of the AC/10 and 3 of the PPC.

Which one is more likely to be precisely applied damage?

That's one of the biggest reasons why boating has always been popular in Mechwarrior titles. You have the same recylce time and the same bullet drop and velocity (sometimes even instantenous) if you use identical weapons. It's not just easy in that you don't need to learn the differences between weapons and switch your aiming mode between the different weapon velocities - you actually have to shoot only once, where a mixed wepaon loadout needs to fire twice for the same damage.

Despite completely random hit locations, this was even a concern in the table top game. That'S why the AC/20 is 14 tons + 8 heat sinks and ammo, while 4 Medium Laser is 4 tons + 12 heat sinks. 8 tons of difference for the benefit of delivering all damage in one go.
In MW:O, you don't have random hit locations, but you are still not perfect and occassionally don't hit where you wanted to hit. But dealing a lot of damage in one position is still benefitial. Destroying the 60 points of armor on some mechs arm is likely to advance your goal of beating that mech more than dealing 20 points of damage to CT, LT, and RT, simply because now you took away some of his firepower.

[DarkJaguar]

MavRCK, on 07 July 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Random convergence -- NERF SKILL!!!!!!!

Sigh... stupid is as stupid does.

It's the exact opposite of a skill nerf. Skill is the ability to place your shots on target in spite of adversity. Having every weapon hit the exact same point in spite of user ability is not.

MustrumRidcully, on 07 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

It doesn't really matter if you deal 40 or 120 damage in 10 seconds. If it's too much damage we can always reduce it, or increase armour.

The deal is more the differences between the weapons.
With 4 PPCs, I can deliver 120 damage with 3 shots.
With, say, 2 AC/10s and 2 PPCs, I can deliver 120 damage with 3 shots of the AC/10 and 3 of the PPC.

Which one is more likely to be precisely applied damage?

That's one of the biggest reasons why boating has always been popular in Mechwarrior titles. You have the same recylce time and the same bullet drop and velocity (sometimes even instantenous) if you use identical weapons. It's not just easy in that you don't need to learn the differences between weapons and switch your aiming mode between the different weapon velocities - you actually have to shoot only once, where a mixed wepaon loadout needs to fire twice for the same damage.

Despite completely random hit locations, this was even a concern in the table top game. That'S why the AC/20 is 14 tons + 8 heat sinks and ammo, while 4 Medium Laser is 4 tons + 12 heat sinks. 8 tons of difference for the benefit of delivering all damage in one go.
In MW:O, you don't have random hit locations, but you are still not perfect and occassionally don't hit where you wanted to hit. But dealing a lot of damage in one position is still benefitial. Destroying the 60 points of armor on some mechs arm is likely to advance your goal of beating that mech more than dealing 20 points of damage to CT, LT, and RT, simply because now you took away some of his firepower.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow how you're disagreeing with me?

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 12:29 PM.

[Pht]

MavRCK, on 07 July 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Random convergence -- NERF SKILL!!!!!!! Sigh... stupid is as stupid does.

</p>
Not true.

Simulating a 'mechs weapons handling capability in relation to conditions occuring when the pilot pulls the triggers leads to more skill being involved:

Quote

Gunnery skill in a BTU BattleMech consists of several physical and mental skills.

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 means you'd actually have to (shocking, I know) know your 'mech... in a mechwarrior video game.

Edited by Pht, 07 July 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 07 July 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Despite completely random hit locations, this was even a concern in the table top game.

The TT doesn't use "completely random hit locations."

The math for the hit-location tables and the to-hit is entirely predictable, and which ones are used at any given time are based off of what conditions are occuring when you fire the weapons.

[DarkJaguar]

Also, to bounce of Pht, I never described completely random hit locations in my write up. I described a balancing measure by having each weapon capable of a certain degree of accuracy (what the TT ranges actually represent). Using an Auto-Cannon as an example, a 120mm HEAP shell doesn't care if it's going 1200m/s or 800 m/s, it's dealing it's damage by the shaped charge warhead. There's no reason for it's range to be 650m OTHER than accuracy.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[FireSlade]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but another thing that is bothering me...Missiles.

Why do missiles do splash damage at all? They're shaped charge weapons, they deal damage in a pencil thin zone directly in front of the warhead. Splash damage really should be removed at well, it doesn't feel right and makes the missiles more powerful than they should be.

To get off topic too; I would have been happier if splash only used the total damage to apply damage. EX. LRMs do 1.1 damage now so if the initial damage would be 0.8 damage direct and 0.3 splash totaling 1.1damage per missile. Some how it works out to be where it does the damage to a section and then adds a bit of splash damage to the surrounding areas totaling more damage than the missile was ever supposed to do in the first place.

[Pht]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Also, to bounce of Pht, I never described completely random hit locations in my write up. I described a balancing measure by having each weapon capable of a certain degree of accuracy (what the TT ranges actually represent). Using an Auto-Cannon as an example, a 120mm HEAP shell doesn't care if it's going 1200m/s or 800 m/s, it's dealing it's damage by the shaped charge warhead. There's no reason for it's range to be 650m OTHER than accuracy.

Autocannons don't fire 120mm rounds. They fire swarms of smaller rounds in order to make the bigger damage.

[DarkJaguar]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Autocannons don't fire 120mm rounds. They fire swarms of smaller rounds in order to make the bigger damage.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor. The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors.

Edited by DarkJaguar, 07 July 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Pht]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Many people reference Mechwarrior Living Legends as a wonderful Mechwarrior experience, yet the values and systems used varied wildly from what TT and other versions used. Others say Mechwarrior: Mercenaries was their favorite Mechwarrior experience, yet it uses a similar hardpoint system . Its a semantic argument about what is or is not Mechwarrior. I've wondered that myself. It seems to be whats causing a lot of issues, and it does not currently seem to be needed. I can only assume they have some use for it in the future. Cheers.

... and this is the rub.

It is not a mere relativistic argument.

Not only was there a definition of "Mechwarrior" (the video game) before it was ever implemented, the very name of the game series/genre implies it's own definition; and what defines the game is the TT. Even the novels are set inside of the boundaries of the TT combat mechanic (as much as the authors can be kept in line).

Here it is, straight from herb's mouth: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

The idea of piloting one of the mechs from the setting in combat in that fictional setting was a cool enough idea that it spawned the entire video game series and the battletech centers tha followed - having the 'mechs matter as much as they do in the lore is a compelling idea... so compelling that even indirectly controlling one in TT format is still fun.

There's really not much of opinion about it. We know what defines the genre; and converting it into realtime would make for a fun game with TONS of replay value.

Edited by Pht, 07 July 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Helmer]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

... and this is the rub.

It is not a mere relativistic argument.

Not only was there a definition of "Mechwarrior" (the video game) before it was ever implemented, the very name of the game series/genre implies it's own definition; and what defines the game is the TT. Even the novels are set inside of the boundaries of the TT combat mechanic (as much as the authors can be kept in line).

Here it is, straight from herb's mouth: http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

The idea of piloting one of the mechs from the setting in combat in that fictional setting was a cool enough idea that it spawned the entire video game series and the battletech centers tha followed - having the 'mechs matter as much as they do in the lore is a compelling idea... so compelling that even indirectly controlling one in TT format is still fun.

There's really not much of opinion about it. We know what defines the genre; and converting it into realtime would make for a fun game with TONS of replay value.

If that's the case, I want to be able to do shoulder rolls with my 'mech ala Decision at Thunderift . There's also the segment of the community who would like to have Tetatae profile pictures in 'mechlab. If you don't include those it's not going to be Mechwarrior in some eyes.

Again, some say To may to , some say To mah to.



Cheers.

[Pht]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

If that's the case, I want to be able to do shoulder rolls with my 'mech ala Decision at Thunderift .

If we had a computer peripheral that could fully simulate the capabilites of the neurohelmet (and no the BMI's we have for home pcs don't work like the NH)... you could.

That, however, in no way changes the fact that we know what defines the genre.

Quote

There's also the segment of the community who would like to have Tetatae profile pictures in 'mechlab. If you don't include those it's not going to be Mechwarrior in some eyes.

Which is entirely peripheral.

However, the simulation of a 'mech's ability to carry out combat in a game that is about ... combat in a 'mech ... is NOT peripheral. Not in any way.

Edited by Pht, 07 July 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

If that's the case, I want to be able to do shoulder rolls with my 'mech ala Decision at Thunderift . There's also the segment of the community who would like to have Tetatae profile pictures in 'mechlab. If you don't include those it's not going to be Mechwarrior in some eyes.

Again, some say To may to , some say To mah to.



Cheers.

We're getting a bit off topic here though, When it comes down to balance, I don't think anyone can make a factual argument that the game -IS- balanced right now. Regardless of someone's feeling about TT, and profile pictures, and shoulder rolls, the point remains, and I have offered up a solution.

[stjobe]

Helmer, on 07 July 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

If that's the case, I want to be able to do shoulder rolls with my 'mech ala Decision at Thunderift . There's also the segment of the community who would like to have Tetatae profile pictures in 'mechlab. If you don't include those it's not going to be Mechwarrior in some eyes.

This post... is really silly.

So because you can't do shoulder rolls, and because a canon but ignored species (seriously, Herb even said they won't be revisited and that they won't play any further part in the BT universe) cannot be played, it's not Mechwarrior?

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Pht had an excellent point, and that is that it's the TT that defines the BattleTech universe; Mechwarrior was the RPG before it became the computer game series - and since it's an incarnation of the BattleTech universe, it's basis is in the TT rules. Those rules define what a 'mech can and cannot do - and it bloody well cannot fire six PPCs at once, much less with pin-point accuracy.

That part of MWO must go, or it will not be true to the BattleTech universe, and therefore not a Mechwarrior game.

Edited by stjobe, 07 July 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[Helmer]

DarkJaguar, on 07 July 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

We're getting a bit off topic here though, When it comes down to balance, I don't think anyone can make a factual argument that the game -IS- balanced right now. Regardless of someone's feeling about TT, and profile pictures, and shoulder rolls, the point remains, and I have offered up a solution.

Agreed. It is currently unbalanced, and we are straying off topic.

I'll bow out of the conversation now.


Cheers.

[Victor Morson]

Bringing up hard TT rules is the quickest way to kill or derail a thread. Yet folks never catch on.

Sure, bring up things from the spirit of it - like I think personally making your aim get worse and engines slow down depending on heat is something with roots into the original game, but could be tweaked and fit to work well in a sim environment. It's a neat core idea, and opens up all kinds of doors for them to tweak it.

But the minute you start specifically citing hard die roll numbers, anyone listening has probably hit the mute button.

Things should be kept as close to the spirit as possible, I agree, but the execution needs room for the developers to make something work in THIS game, not TT. Honestly your table top arguments would be much more applicable to Mechwarrior: Tactics than Mechwarrior: Online.

I doubt I'll stop you PHt because you've been doing this since before CB and I've never been able to convince you, but no MW game ever will incorporate much of that stuff. Ever. And it shouldn't - Table Top has a ton of horrendously broken rules and imbalances. If you think PGI can be stubborn I'd like to point out FASA pretty much never retcon'ed a single thing in their rules, instead opting to stack more and more rules on top of the broken rules, leaving us with busted guns, a silly DHS mechanic, etc. TT had it's own problems and honestly is due for a reboot of it's own.

[DarkJaguar]

Victor Morson, on 07 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Bringing up hard TT rules is the quickest way to kill or derail a thread. Yet folks never catch on.

Sure, bring up things from the spirit of it - like I think personally making your aim get worse and engines slow down depending on heat is something with roots into the original game, but could be tweaked and fit to work well in a sim environment. It's a neat core idea, and opens up all kinds of doors for them to tweak it.

But the minute you start specifically citing hard die roll numbers, anyone listening has probably hit the mute button.

Things should be kept as close to the spirit as possible, I agree, but the execution needs room for the developers to make something work in THIS game, not TT. Honestly your table top arguments would be much more applicable to Mechwarrior: Tactics than Mechwarrior: Online.

I doubt I'll stop you PHt because you've been doing this since before CB and I've never been able to convince you, but no MW game ever will incorporate much of that stuff. Ever. And it shouldn't - Table Top has a ton of horrendously broken rules and imbalances. If you think PGI can be stubborn I'd like to point out FASA pretty much never retcon'ed a single thing in their rules, instead opting to stack more and more rules on top of the broken rules, leaving us with busted guns, a silly DHS mechanic, etc. TT had it's own problems and honestly is due for a reboot of it's own.

So, Victor, do you feel that the fixes I outlined wouldn't work? Why not? I provided a system based on the spirit of things, that uses proper values. What stands out to you as broken in it?