721 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

So, you don't want a game that simulates mech combat in a game about mech combat?

i don't want the computer to play the game for me.

Amazing how this:

your 'Mech's ability to make the shot;

is now somehow distorted by you into a description of babysitting an aimbot?

You appear to have a very abnormal definition of what an aimbot is. Aimbots mean you have to interact less. The above makes you interact MORE.

we already have most of those same interactions EXCEPT with this game we get to actually have direct control over the aiming of weapons. the computer calculates range and sets convergence (i do wish they would bring back the convergence time instead of this immediate convergence mess).

the only things your system adds is weapon modes and ammo types. plenty of other games have those things WITHOUT stripping the ability to aim from the player S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a perfect example.

aimbots mean the aiming part of the game gets taken out of the hands of the player. they press a button and 'Mech's ability to make the shot; is all that matters. do you know why aim bots are so common? because it is incredibly easy to design a basic program that calculates motion and lead on a known target, most modern weapons do this easily, but that makes for generally boring gameplay.

Now if only you'd bother to argue against something other than a strawman in your mind. Maybe, say, honestly interact with what I've posted.

so when you hand ALL aiming over to the mech and everything is based on 'Mech's ability to make the shot; that ISN'T an aim bot?

Or will you still let your grudge against me for agreeing with you and asking you to do what you said should be done distort everything I post?



Lie.

Denial

So, if I dare to ask you what and why, exactly, about transferring them, gets lost in the translation... will you actually answer?

what gets lost when you take away dice and turns in a turn based game that relies on dice for almost everything? damn i guess i just lose this one.

Which is why in the conversion to first-person realtime you add in most all of the advanced rules that make things more complex.

on this point i agree, BUT that is not an excuse to strip things away from the player.

... and can you list these things that the mechwarrior directly controls in the lore that are left out in converting the tt combat mechanic into first-person realtime? Is there something more here than just a claim?

AIMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i would like to aim my guns and you want to take that away. you want lore? how about the series of mechwarrior games that have been around for years. you don't just get to use the word "lore" to mean the stuff you like. stackpole is part of the lore as well and we have clearly defined that you don't like engine explosions (despite the fact that they are in TT rules as well as many other sources).

engine explosions and direct aiming are both well established portions of the lore.

[Antagonist]

It is a sad day on any game's forum when balancing proposals by its community are vastly superior to anything the dev team put out in half a year's worth of development time.

Not that PGI is going to listen, but I would certainly not mind eating my words on this account.

[Unbound Inferno]

Antagonist, on 18 July 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

It is a sad day on any game's forum when balancing proposals by its community are vastly superior to anything the dev team put out in half a year's worth of development time.

Not that PGI is going to listen, but I would certainly not mind eating my words on this account.

All of us arguing about things like would love to as well. Sadly, if history serves to judge that truth - its not likely.

[AndyHill]

Voivode, on 18 July 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I agree with you on a lot of things but I have to say, the argument to stick to tabletop for everything is pretty flawed. There are two major reasons for this, both having to do with the difference between a TT game and a video game.

1) NO DICE: We aren't rolling dice to determine hits and hit locations. We are aiming in a video game. That alone changes a huge amount about how games play out. You can't rely on values from a game that had a system of random chance to balance a system that is not based on random chance.

What exactly makes up that huge amount? I'm not saying the translation was trivial, but it's perhaps not quite as massive an undertaking as some think. Basically the conflicting things are hit calculations based on dice and range numbers and the smooth movement where you don't have 10 seconds of time to shoot everything you've got at the enemy who then moves away. Also I don't believe it's at all about the numbers, it's about gameplay mechanisms. The numbers are basically weapon balance, the important difference is in the way shots are delivered to the target.

As I've mentioned earlier, I feel that group fire simply has to go, it has no place in the tabletop game and in the simulator it's probably even worse. If we add more freely distributable armor to the mix (you could put lots in the hunch for example) we might at some point find surprisingly good gameplay and balance in MWO. At least I'd have to see how those changes affect the gameplay before making further changes.

Quote

2) 10 SECOND ROUNDS. Honestly, who's really going to play a video game where you have to wait ten seconds to fire any weapons again? Obviously, they have to change this because while it makes sense as a notional item in a TT game, it doesn't make sense when you actually have to sit there and wait. Once you change that, a lot of the balancing of the other TT rules have to be changed as well.

http://worldoftanks....gistered-users/

Also, since group fire would be gone and there would be something like 1 second forced delay between firing any two weapons, you would in practice be shooting basically non-stop on some variants.

Quote

I think convergence has the potential to be a better balancing factor than the heat penalties, but for a studio that seems overworked already, the heat penalties are probably just way simpler to implement.

Convergence has its good sides, but I'm not convinced it's the solution to pinpoint alphaing. If anyone is interested in my views, check out the part 2 in the op of this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...ing-group-fire/

I would actually be interested in testing my views about convergence with one of the advocates either in this thread or mine, whichever is more appropriate. Convergence seems to be a very popular idea, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something there.

[DarkJaguar]

The people rallying for pin-point convergence simply have mistaken ideals of game mechanics. They're the ones who will happily use a 4x PPC stalker or 2x PPC 1x Gauss Rifle Highlander "Because it wins", and then state that the game is perfectly balanced, and that if you want to win, you simply have to use the same build as them.

The problem with this is that it's inherently selfish, and selfish points of view rarely if ever translate well into a game that is sustainable. If MWO continues to trend in the direction it is, I find it highly unlikely that it will survive long enough for use to even see the clan mechs.

[Unbound Inferno]

DarkJaguar, on 18 July 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

The people rallying for pin-point convergence simply have mistaken ideals of game mechanics. They're the ones who will happily use a 4x PPC stalker or 2x PPC 1x Gauss Rifle Highlander "Because it wins", and then state that the game is perfectly balanced, and that if you want to win, you simply have to use the same build as them.

The problem with this is that it's inherently selfish, and selfish points of view rarely if ever translate well into a game that is sustainable. If MWO continues to trend in the direction it is, I find it highly unlikely that it will survive long enough for use to even see the clan mechs.

As much as I agree with you, and would like to get rid of convergence here - I doubt that would happen.

The next best bet is to find a way to mitigate the damage and set the pace of the fight. No single solution can cut that as its a number of factors between the heat system, reload times and the damage delivery. It can be balanced to work, but its no feat to take lightly.

[jeffsw6]

DarkJaguar, on 18 July 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

The people rallying for pin-point convergence simply have mistaken ideals of game mechanics. They're the ones who will happily use a 4x PPC stalker or 2x PPC 1x Gauss Rifle Highlander "Because it wins", and then state that the game is perfectly balanced, and that if you want to win, you simply have to use the same build as them.

I don't think this is true. I believe it is possible to balance the game while still having perfect convergence. Neither one of us can be proven right/wrong, unfortunately, because PGI has not really tried many easy things like ... modify range/heat/etc values of the O/P weapons.

You are advocating a complicated change. I advocate a simple one: adjusting values (range/heat/etc.) It is obvious that my suggestion should be tried and tested, thoroughly, before writing it off and investing time in a more complex, more costly solution.

We can continue to disagree. You might be right about the ultimate fix. I am definitely right about the process, though. Try the simple, low-effort solution first.

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

No. They stay the same. The rest gets balanced.

You really need to read my idea thuroughly.

This is what you said in your earlier post:

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

10 seconds for LRMs PPC, Gauss make sense.

Other lasers could be faster, but less damage - but balanced. That is the idea.

Your system would give LRMs, PPCs, and Gauss Rifles a relatively higher alpha. Note that I didn't say higher DPS, but higher alpha. The guy with the 10-second cool-down weapons can spend much more time running, hiding, torso-twisting, and more time aiming his 60% fewer shots, than his opponent who has 4-second cool-down weapons.


Also, I'll remind you that PGI has really not tried to balance the game by modifying simple values. If you think that your system is the most likely one to work, even though you must admit it will take a lot of development time to implement, you should be my strongest advocate -- you should want them to modify values, assume my idea fails, and then move on to yours.

I don't know for sure that the game can be fixed without convergence changes, or even more changes as you suggest. I do know that my idea is very easy to test, and yours is quite expensive.

[AndyHill]

My problem with convergence is that it's not enough to fix the problem. Static convergence, for example might even be preferable to the current implementation in many cases and it would make certain builds (stalker, gausspult) markedly superior to others (awesome, atlas). Only arms converging would make hull weapons pretty useless and some chassis markedly superior (stalker again, atlas RS). No convergence whatsoever would help Gausspult more than anyone else, but in general it would probably be fairly effective. Cone of Fire that still enables sniping will have to be accurate enough to make closer range engagements pinpoint (unless possibly some special rules are applied, please specify).

[DarkJaguar]

AndyHill, on 19 July 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

My problem with convergence is that it's not enough to fix the problem. Static convergence, for example might even be preferable to the current implementation in many cases and it would make certain builds (stalker, gausspult) markedly superior to others (awesome, atlas). Only arms converging would make hull weapons pretty useless and some chassis markedly superior (stalker again, atlas RS). No convergence whatsoever would help Gausspult more than anyone else, but in general it would probably be fairly effective. Cone of Fire that still enables sniping will have to be accurate enough to make closer range engagements pinpoint (unless possibly some special rules are applied, please specify).

The cone of fire fix applied WITH the convergence fix would make long range sniping possible (torso weapons converge at max range, arm mounted weapons converge from infinity down to say 300m), while making those same long range weapons LESS useful in a brawl (applying the Damage/Cycle times my calculator shows). For example, you want to snipe with a Gauss Rifle in your Misery and have a PPC in each arm. Your weapons have high probability to hit the torsos of your target from 300-600m, however within 300m your PPCs are likely to hit the arms or side torsos whereas your Gauss is likely to hit a side torso or center torso still. Furthermore, your gauss rifle will fire ONCE in 10 seconds, and your PPCs will fire three times in 10 seconds, so if someone closes with you, your gauss rifle becomes more of a liability than a strength.

On the other hand, someone with an AC10, an SRM6 and four medium lasers is going to do more damage in that same 10 seconds than the Gauss+2x PPC build, and their weapons are more effective for brawling (wide damage windows, multiple shots in the same 10 seconds), and say their MLas and SRM are torso mounted, they are HIGHLY likely to all hit the torsos from 0-270m and still pretty likely to hit the side torsos from 270-540.

[AndyHill]

If the arm weapons on a stalker converge to about 300m, they will still be able to hit a CT size target at about 200 I'd say. If I recall correctly, the DPS is unchanged, so the gauss would still do 15 dmg with one shot and PPCs 10 (total damage in the examples my 35 versus the opponent's 42)? Personally I would take that every time over weapons that do their damage over time. I really don't see how they would be more effective for brawling, am I missing something again? Basically in that situation I would smack the opponent once and hurt him wherever I hit and then focusing on spreading the opponent's fire, hiding behind obstacles and opening the range if possible.

Anyway, focusing on the convergence... In the above case, wouldn't that create a somewhat significant difference to torso and arm weapons (I don't really know off-hand if that's a good thing or bad)? Brawlers wouldn't have much use for arms and snipers wouldn't like torso weapons as much. But virtually everyone would have the ability to pinpoint massive damage at medium ranges (although some weapons would take a long while to do so with long beams or autocannons?), which I would rather avoid. Can you elaborate a bit on the cone of fire, how much would it affect short to medium range batte, say 0-500m?

[Pht]

The14th, on 17 July 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Crap info, ...

Someone apparently didn't do much more than scan my post. The info referred to isn't even discussing the topic at hand and wasn't intended as such.

Quote

...none of it changes the fact that you are...

I'm not. Which you'd know if you did more than scan the post and jump to a wrong conclusion based upon your preconceptions.

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!

Meaning you still have to use ALL of the mousing/joystick tracking skills that you are using in MWO right now; PLUS know your 'mech. As it is in any FPS game where the weapons ballistics are properly modeled; and you have to know your weapon.

[Pht]

jeffsw6, on 17 July 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

I was saying it is not useful for you to advocate a system based on TT values without stating, in the same post, that you believe the way aiming works should be dramatically altered.

No. You weren't saying this.

You said this:

jeffsw6, on 17 July 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

My problem with you, Pht, is you continue to advocate a simple change of damage, heat, and RoF numbers without stating what you think must be done to address the huge pin-point alpha problems. You barely agree the problem would still exist if TT values were used, and you have never stated what mechanic you believe would be acceptable.

All you do is cry for TT values without being honest and telling players if you want a cone-of-fire, random dice roll, etc.

Changing topics doesn't change the fact that you posted something before you did your homework.

Quote

You confuse players who aren't savvy enough to understand that TT values won't "just work" due to the pin-point problem. That is harmful to the discussion.

... and are you actually "savvy enough" to do more than claim that it wont work? Or will you join virtually everyone else I've ever asked to back their claim up, and shirk giving an answer?

Quote

If you believe the aiming mechanics should be changed, then say so in these same posts where you advocate for a more pure TT system -- don't just say you want TT values.

... and apparently now you presume that people are so stupid that they can't figure out that hit percentages based upon how conditions affect the 'mechs ability to bring their weapons to bear is different than how MWO currently works.

Quote

You've labeled my argument a strawman, ...

Because you posted something that wasn't my position and than said that it was and attacked it. Which fits the definition of "strawman argument."

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 18 July 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

Yes, I don't want that.

Ok. So you don't want to play an armored combat simulator where the battlemechs actually count. which is perfectly ok.

Why are you even in here arguing that this game shouldn't actually simulate the 'mechs when there are scads of other games in which there is nothing stopping you from having pixel perfect aim?

For that matter, are you annoyed in, say, UT, by the rocket weapon and alt-fire on the flak cannon? They don't hit what you exactly aim at either. In fact, most FPS/Shooters have at least one weapon type that doesn't hit exactly what you're aiming at.

Quote

If it means that most of the effectiveness of my attack is determined by a randomization algorithm rather than simply on where I point at with my mouse, it feels off to me.

You would still have to use 100% of the physical aiming and tracking skills that you use in MWO right now with your control peripheral. The only difference being that the 'mech calculates lead/convergence (just like they do in the lore); meaning that instead of having to "know your rifle" you'd have to "know your 'mech."

Quote

I am willing to throw out or adapt everything from the table top game that allows mouse aiming - and even convergence, to an extent - to work in a balanced and meaningful manner in a real time game.

It seems to me you either don't like armored combat, or you are still a bit stuck on your preconceptions of what I've been advocating.

Quote

But in the end it might be irrelevant. PGI isn't going to adopt your solution, they aren't going to adopt mine, and the solutions they have come up with on their own so far are... mixed.

It is indeed strange to have a mech-combat game in which mech-combat isn't simulated.

[Pht]

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Instead of an FPS-sim like game, someone is advocating a MUD or turn based strategy game based on TT values.

Nobody is.

Quote

... the simple fact is you cannot properly translate "randomness" to stuff like the Hunchback's hunch that has a significant balance based meaning to gameplay.

Yes, you can actually get hit-percentages based upon how things affect your 'mech working in the game.

Quote

Translating TT hit values on a map like Tourmaline is foolish enough... where the "hitboxes" of the crystalline structures have to be accounted for..

?

Quote

so something like the Atlas's arms in MWO and the shape of the structures cannot be just be plugged in to a random number generator,...

Yes, they can. Quite easily actually. Once you actually simulate the 'mech's combat performance.

All that is needed is LOS calculation (virtually all combat games can already do this), a "does it hit" and an "if it hit, what does it hit" mechanic. Which are just simple database calculations.

Quote

Anyways, just stop...

Nope.

Quote

with any TT hit representation reference... because it would never work with MWO.

Because you say it wont?

Gaan Cathal, on 18 July 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

This is the game you are looking for.

If it is, than this is the game YOU are looking for.

Or maybe we could ... you know ...actually interact with each other's positions?

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

At bold, stopped reading there.

Pathetic.

[Pht]

Voivode, on 18 July 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I agree with you on a lot of things but I have to say, the argument to stick to tabletop for everything...

I didn't say or mean that we should "stick to the TT for everything."

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

As for using the tabletop rules (TT) and stats in a VG - the idea is not to pursue slavish adherence to form of the various rules with no thought for the translation to a real-time VG format and no care for the concept of MW being a first person real time armored combat sim game set in the BTU.

Rather, the various rules give the raw numbers to work with and the behaviors to work towards. As far as the human-skill end, the rules and stats from the TT that are there to simulate the skills of the 'Mech's pilot should be left out, if at all possible... meaning that ALL of the piloting skill rules that simulate anything that we, the VG players, can control with our PC's and their peripherals should be left out. ALL of the pilot's gunnery simulation rules are not to be put into the video game, because we can control everything that the fictional 'Mech's pilot can control with our computer controls.

...

What is really wanted is only just enough of a simulation of what it's like to pilot a 'Mech in the BTU to suspend disbelief (this is what most people seem to call "realism") while maintaining fun gameplay and otherwise being respectful of the BTU.

Quote

1) NO DICE: We aren't rolling dice to determine hits and hit locations. We are aiming in a video game.

The MW video game genre does not work like this.

In a 'mech the pilot controls the reticule on his hud; he must do the target tracking and pull the triggers. Beyond that; it's up to his 'mech to actually bring the weapons to bear. It is this second part that is missing.

Everyone presumes Pure FPS aiming is proper in the MW video game genre. it's not. there's this thing called the 'mech that has to take part in the process.

Quote

2) 10 SECOND ROUNDS. Honestly, who's really going to play a video game where you have to wait ten seconds to fire any weapons again?

I guess at this point I'll have to put it on the top of my post that I DO NOT ADVOCATE A TEN SECOND RECYCLE/TURN time. Which should be already obvious because I've stated multiple times that the game is in real time.

Quote

Obviously, they have to change this because while it makes sense as a notional item in a TT game, it doesn't make sense when you actually have to sit there and wait. Once you change that, a lot of the balancing of the other TT rules have to be changed as well.

The mechanic that controls refire rate (can I fire this weapon right now?) is not the ten second turn. It is the heat mechanic; which controls EVERY weapon system mounted in a 'mech. heat determines if you can even fire in any given round (as you may be shutdown); it also determines if your 'mech can actually hit what you are tracking with the reticule (heat messes up a 'mechs ability to aim), etc.

So if you want a faster refire rate than 10 seconds, add in more heat. Balance preserved.

Deathlike, on 18 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Nope. I read "TT" in translation is already know this is not a good idea.

And can you tell anyone WHY, logically, it won't work?

You already wimped out on my post, so I guess it would be wrong of me to ask you to say how what I posted wouldn't work.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pht, on 19 July 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

Ok. So you don't want to play an armored combat simulator where the battlemechs actually count. which is perfectly ok.

But the battlemech counts. It decides the weapons I carry, how fast I move, how well I can withstand damage, what special equipment I can use.

Quote

Why are you even in here arguing that this game shouldn't actually simulate the 'mechs when there are scads of other games in which there is nothing stopping you from having pixel perfect aim?

For that matter, are you annoyed in, say, UT, by the rocket weapon and alt-fire on the flak cannon? They don't hit what you exactly aim at either. In fact, most FPS/Shooters have at least one weapon type that doesn't hit exactly what you're aiming at.

I don't play those games, so I cannot say how I'd feel about them.

My other favourite FPS games are Descent 1-3. I don't think it uses COF. I am generally terrible at FPS and would never play one for mutliplayer for long.

Quote

It seems to me you either don't like armored combat, or you are still a bit stuck on your preconceptions of what I've been advocating.

I like giant stompy robots, I like Battletech mechs. I like PPCs, Lasers, Auto-Cannons, the whole shebang. I just don't care for being stuck with the role of "kill decision maker". I like to aim at my enemy. I probably wouldn't mind a cone of fire to some extent, but I would mind a cone of fire that gives me a - what is it, 33 % chance (whatever the exact TT chance for hitting CT is) to hit CT at point blank range. I just don't buy it. I also can't believe that it's my gunnery skill that decides whether I hit the target at all, but I don't have control where on the mech I hit.

I don't see this as something that is actually true in the Battletech universe. I think it's just an abstraction for the sake of playability, just like 10 second turns and every weapon only firing once in 10 seconds (except Ultras and Rotary). I would have chosen a different to-hit/hit-location mechanic if I had designed Battletech.

I could perhaps deal with it better if this was a roleplaying game - where my character has a gunnery and a piloting stat and I only make general tactical decisions. But this is very far from what any Mechwarrior game has ever been.

I always joke that I would love a turn-based first person shooter. Oh, now I remember another shooter (not FPS) I like - Max Payne. Bullet Time rocks.

Quote

It is indeed strange to have a mech-combat game in which mech-combat isn't simulated.

But mech combat is simulated just fine in M:WO. There are simulated mechs running around, they shoot each other, the effects of these shots are simulated

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 19 July 2013 - 05:02 PM.

[Pht]

If you put the word "quote" in brackets:[] and than /quote in brackets around stuff you're quoting in your they will be much easier for everyone else to read.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2571026

blinkin said:

i don't want the computer to play the game for me.

----

we already have most of those same interactions

----

aimbots mean the aiming part of the game gets taken out of the hands of the player. they press a button and 'Mech's ability to make the shot; is all that matters.

----

so when you hand ALL aiming over to the mech and everything is based on 'Mech's ability to make the shot; that ISN'T an aim bot?

I didn't say it should.

----

No. You don't. It is impossible to have them because those interactions (excluding the ones specifically for the individual weapons) because those interactions require simulation of a 'mech's combat performance, which is not present in this game.

----

This is not what I've posted nor advocated. In no way have I posted that the 'mech does all the aiming.

Quote

Denial

Of course I denied the truth of your assertion. Because it's not true. And demonstrably so.

Quote

what gets lost when you take away dice and turns in a turn based game that relies on dice for almost everything? damn i guess i just lose this one.

So is it you're not capable of pointing it out? Or is it that you actually don't have any good reasons for making your assertion?

Quote

AIMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i would like to aim my guns

So you want to actually physically aim muliple weapons? Magically? All at once? In a game where they're mounted to the combat unit you're supposed to be piloting?

Quote

you want lore? how about the series of mechwarrior games that have been around for years. you don't just get to use the word "lore" to mean the stuff you like.

Already addressed this at length; and no, I've not cherry-picked the lore.

Spoiler

Where can we validly go to to define the Battletech Universe, and from within that definition, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat? There are three different sources that are usually appealed to.

First, there are the previous MechWarrior video games. Positively, these are useful as examples of how others have tried to implement what it is like to pilot a BTU BattleMech in video game format. However, as far as actually defining the BTUniverse (and within that what it is like to pilot a BattleMech) the previous MW video games are not very good.

First of all, they are derivative instead of foundational works as far as concerns the BTUniverse - they looked elsewhere to get their definition(s), and at times these places were not always the best choices. They are also to some extent built game play upon arbitrary assumptions and concepts that are not always consistent with each other from game to game... meaning that there is no valid reason to choose one idea from any game over another - we may as well flip a coin!

---

Second, there are the Battletech novels and the short stories and "in universe" lore in the various source books for the tabletop game of Battletech. This "story" source is the genesis for much of the BTUniverse lore/information and it is usually more consistent with itself. It can be helpful in knowing conceptually, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, because it is largely free of any limitations that the various game formats necessarily impose.

That said, because of the lack of strict restrictions due to format "fiat" characters and concepts creep in at places - a tool used by authors to achieve their desired outcomes and to otherwise embellish their stories - which means the story overrides all other considerations, so care must be used in deciding what concepts to use. There is also the problem that while this story source is good at giving the concepts of what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, it does not give usable clear definitions in hard "black and white" of how these concepts work.

---

Third, there are the rules that make up the Battletech tabletop game. This system(1984) was released before the novels by two years(1986), and the novels, "fiat" excluded, have not contradicted what the TT system rules "aim at." This system was, as far someone who was not involved in the origination of BT can tell, the genesis of much of the mechanics that exist in the the BTUniverse.

The various rules that make up this system are usually "hard numbers in black and white" and they lay out a fairly comprehensive baseline for BattleMech behavior and performance, and also piloting duties; and as far as seems humanly possible they are not contradictory of each other - or the "story" source either. The downside of these rules that make up this system is that they sometimes do not indicate exactly what it is they are intended to emulate. They also at times make compromises specific to the tabletop turn-based gaming format. The form of the rules do not always work in a video game format - they require translation at times.

http://mwomercs.com/...060#entry107060

Quote

stackpole is part of the lore as well and we have clearly defined that you don't like engine explosions (despite the fact that they are in TT rules as well as many other sources).

The nuclear-exploding fusion engine is an optional rule and always has been; and the definitive source in Techmanual specifically written to, amongst other things, address exactly what is and is not "real" in the lore says that mech fusion engines can't go nuclear. Which the author of the article AND the LINE DEVELOPER of the entire lore have confirmed.

Quote

...direct aiming are both well established portions of the lore.

Direct aiming is not a part of the lore.

From the authorities on the issue:

Cray said:

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...7t1q5#msg591660

paul said:

Correct, each weapon is aimed independently beyond the mobility of any limbs or torso or turret it might be attached to. Part of their weapon mass and bulk is taken up by this.

http://bg.battletech....html#msg676374

Edited by Pht, 19 July 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 19 July 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

But the battlemech counts. It decides the weapons I carry, how fast I move, how well I can withstand damage, what special equipment I can use.

And yet it's ability to bring it's weapons to aim has been virtually left out of the game; with the minor exception of a slower reticule and now the JJ shake.

The 'mech has virtually NO affect on the weapons fire beyond how it moves. In fact, how the 'mech is moving at any given time doesn't affect anything more in MWO than your need to calculate when to pull the trigger. Outside of jumping, movement has no effect on the mech's weapons aiming capabilities.

Quote

I don't play those games, so I cannot say how I'd feel about them.

My other favourite FPS games are Descent 1-3. I don't think it uses COF. I am generally terrible at FPS and would never play one for mutliplayer for long.

Than why do you post as if you require that exact sort of combat in this game?

Quote

I like giant stompy robots, I like Battletech mechs. I like PPCs, Lasers, Auto-Cannons, the whole shebang. I just don't care for being stuck with the role of "kill decision maker".I like to aim at my enemy.

In the interest of actually understanding what you mean... what do you mean by "aim?"

Do you mean, you like to be "physically" in direct control of the aim of the weapon? Or something else?

Quote

I probably wouldn't mind a cone of fire to some extent,

First - I'm not advocating a cone. A CoF system requries you to actually calculate a cone in math. Not the same thing.

Quote

but I would mind a cone of fire that gives me a - what is it, 33 % chance (whatever the exact TT chance for hitting CT is) to hit CT at point blank range. I just don't buy it. I also can't believe that it's my gunnery skill that decides whether I hit the target at all, but I don't have control where on the mech I hit.

You seem to be operating as if you are playing a game in which you should directly control the individual weapons, instead of being in direct control of the armored unit, with that armored unit actually directly controlling the weapons.

Quote

I don't see this as something that is actually true in the Battletech universe.

Read the novels. The only people who can exactly control what part they hit in combat are the author-fiat universe breaking characters.

Quote

But mech combat is simulated just fine in M:WO. There are simulated mechs running around, they shoot each other, the effects of these shots are simulated

No, they aren't simulated just fine. The most important part of their combat performance is utterly left out of the game; their weapons handling capability.

Edited by Pht, 19 July 2013 - 05:37 PM.

[DarkJaguar]

AndyHill, on 19 July 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

If the arm weapons on a stalker converge to about 300m, they will still be able to hit a CT size target at about 200 I'd say. If I recall correctly, the DPS is unchanged, so the gauss would still do 15 dmg with one shot and PPCs 10 (total damage in the examples my 35 versus the opponent's 42)? Personally I would take that every time over weapons that do their damage over time. I really don't see how they would be more effective for brawling, am I missing something again? Basically in that situation I would smack the opponent once and hurt him wherever I hit and then focusing on spreading the opponent's fire, hiding behind obstacles and opening the range if possible.

Anyway, focusing on the convergence... In the above case, wouldn't that create a somewhat significant difference to torso and arm weapons (I don't really know off-hand if that's a good thing or bad)? Brawlers wouldn't have much use for arms and snipers wouldn't like torso weapons as much. But virtually everyone would have the ability to pinpoint massive damage at medium ranges (although some weapons would take a long while to do so with long beams or autocannons?), which I would rather avoid. Can you elaborate a bit on the cone of fire, how much would it affect short to medium range batte, say 0-500m?

It depends on the weapon. Longer range weapons with longer recycle times would be affected by COF very little at 300m, though at 540m the PPC's CoF (can we call it a "CEP" please?) would be a 3-4m Diameter. On the other hand, what use is a weapon to a brawler with a 5-10 second recycle time and a digital hit scale (it hits or it misses). An AC20 has a 4 second cycle time with a 1 second burst duration, but that burst duration allows a hastily aimed shot to be walked back onto target. Additionally, the PPC, even with it's 3.33 second duration is pretty worthless at less than 90 meters (it should have a chance to explode if used within 90m). So the "Big Guns" are now balanced by slow cycle times, useless at close range, or just stupidly heavy (AC20 and Gauss).

[Teralitha]

DarkJaguar, on 15 July 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

You don't need to remove DHS to make SHS viable, you need to reduce the heat of High-critslot weapons like the autocannon family to make them viable with SHS.

They were viable before the existence of double heat sinks. You are just spoiled rotten. Last time I drove a stock HBK4G I faced 2 optimized gausspults alone that were guarding their base and killed them both. I didnt overheat, and they didnt either, obviously. Your problem is not weapon viability in a single heat sink enviroment, your lack of skill, and no tolerance for managing heat is the problem.

Edited by Teralitha, 19 July 2013 - 08:01 PM.