68 replies to this topic

[LoganMkv]

The premise is simple - it's clear now that MWO is never going to be well-integrated into BT setting.

Mechwarriors in BT are never limited to deathmatching equal amount of mechs on well-known small areas with any customization available.

They coexist with infantry, vehicles, aircraft, immobile turrets, dropships, minefields, and so on.

They are very limited in supply, customization and deployment, fight in huge hostile unknown environments, do very different missions, but mostly prioritize pilot survival and positive salvage/loss ratio over mission success.

That's why there's no balance concern in BT. All weapons and mechs have their use. Medium stock mechs are most common ones in universe, because of their cost/utility efficiency. Rusty mech with 2xAC2 and nothing more may be crucial for mission success cause it's main AA weapon. Most mechwarriors would like to have at least LRM5 available, cause it means possibility to stay away from harm. Noone cares if boating 6x ppc is balanced, cause such mech is vulnerable to a bunch of things. JJs are very important, cuase you can't know if there's conviniently placed ramp round the next corner. It's possible to continue the list for a long time.


So, what if we stop trying to balance things which were not supposed to be balanced, but go full nuts and try to make just a good skirmish game in "alternative universe" to BT with any means imaginable?

[William Mountbank]

I think because there are already skirmish games like Hawken, so constraining MWO with a light dab of BT makes it a slower paced and more tactical game, and that might be a good thing.

But having gone back and read some of the original design notes for MWO, with the Inner Sphere map and other more BT related touches - and combined with my own expectation of a sprawling strategic/tactical game pitting player groups against each other across multiple battles (a bit like the pardus.at universe), the current realisation seems a little constrained in comparison, although I still enjoy playing.

[DI3T3R]

@
LoganMkv:


Do you actually realize what you demand?

The only destructible things right now in a map are the players themselves and they are loaded separately from the map.
PGI would have to program a framework for destructible NPCs first. Then we can have forests, destructible buildings, destructible slopes and rocks...

THEN the next step would be a moving destructible NPC, which would give us convoy-missions.

AND THEN the next step would be to give an NPC an AI so he reacts to his surroundings, which would give us turrets and later on tanks and so on.

AND THEN the whining will start that the AI-enemies aren't smart enough or are too good at sniping or whatever, so PGI will have to balance that.

How long will that take and how high is that priority?

[LoganMkv]

DI3T3R, on 11 October 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

Do you actually realize what you demand?

First of all, I can't "demand" anything.
As for things you mentioned, those are implemented in countless games, including most BT titles.
As for priority - it's very subjective. To me, it's even impossible to think about a BT title without them, and I was very surprised with MWO ignoring them, but for others it may be not true.

[stjobe]

LoganMkv, on 11 October 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

The premise is simple - it's clear now that MWO is never going to be well-integrated into BT setting.

I reject your premise, that is far from clear. All the things you mention below - and even a PvE campaign - have been mentioned as things PGI wants to do.

Just because what we currently have is 12v12 deathmatch doesn't mean that is all MWO will ever be.

LoganMkv, on 11 October 2013 - 03:15 AM, said:

So, what if we stop trying to balance things which were not supposed to be balanced, but go full nuts and try to make just a good skirmish game in "alternative universe" to BT with any means imaginable?

How about we at least wait for CW before reducing MWO to "just a good skirmish game" (which it arguably already is)?

[ssm]

DI3T3R, on 11 October 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

@
LoganMkv:


Do you actually realize what you demand?

The only destructible things right now in a map are the players themselves and they are loaded separately from the map.
PGI would have to program a framework for destructible NPCs first. Then we can have forests, destructible buildings, destructible slopes and rocks...

THEN the next step would be a moving destructible NPC, which would give us convoy-missions.

AND THEN the next step would be to give an NPC an AI so he reacts to his surroundings, which would give us turrets and later on tanks and so on.

AND THEN the whining will start that the AI-enemies aren't smart enough or are too good at sniping or whatever, so PGI will have to balance that.

How long will that take and how high is that priority?

AND THEN the game would be unplayable to 80% players because of netcode/performance issues.

PGI has to work under certain conditions, always minding that large part of their playerbase are BT fans who aren't hardcore gamers and play MWO simply because the like this IP since 80s-90s. They have other finacial priorities than buying new gaming rig every two years.

Just look around certain subforums and see on what computers a lot of players try to run this game.

Edited by ssm, 11 October 2013 - 04:31 AM.

[Shadey99]

This has come up before, and still my answer is the same...

Why buy the MechWarrior/BT IP and then not make a MechWarrior/BT game? MWO is hardly the first MechWarrior and it's not even the first 'online'/'massive'/'strategic' (or other buzz words) mechwarrior game.

The original EGA mechwarrior had a version of the game that was: massive, online, and strategic. All back in the days of DOS. MechWarrior 2 in the era of DOS and Windows 95 (It straddled those areas) had online and arena play, but not the strategic parts. Both were in the era of dial-up modems so we even had to deal with latency of 200-400 ms regularly. Real time sim/FPS hybrid mechwarrior games are completely possible in an online setting.

Btw this does not mean that MWO should mimic everything 1to1. I'm just saying at the end of the day MWO needs to feel like BT.

Edited by Shadey99, 11 October 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[Marmon Rzohr]

It's not that MWO should abandon BT, far from it. It just might be wise to throw the BT rulebooks away, since this is a very different game. Attempting to preserve turn-based values and systems when moving into real time is a risky move at the best of time.

Yes, MWO differs quite a bit from classic BT as is, but perhaps it needs an even bigger rethink. Look at JJs for instance. In the game as it is now, they are used both as a mobility tool (as intended) and as a sniping tool, of all things.

[culverin]

Tabletop veteran here.


Before everybody says "table top is an entirely different game, it won't translate well into a mech sim".
I disagree!

Table top is balanced!
And MWO threw away the 2 biggest balancing factors.

• Inaccuracy of weapons that get worse when moving, (aka cone of fire that grows with movement)
  
• And a very, very, very punishing heat scale.
  

The table top is also based around a 30-second turn cycle.
Heat generation from movement and dissipation from heatsinks is spaced out over that 30-second period.

• Weapon damage
  
• Weapon range
  
• Mech speed
  
• Mech mobility (jump jets)
  
• Weapon heat
  
• Weapon weight

If by throwing away the 2 biggest balancing features, the game will remain inherently unbalanced.
Throw the 2 biggest balancing factors out the door.
But you still want to use all the BattleMech designs, weapon profiles and ranges?

No duh we will have problems!!!



These balancing factors prevent you from placing 4 ER PPC shots in a single location at long range.
And you're sure as hell not supposed to be able to do that while pop-tarting.

• The heatscale forces you to manage your heat well and cycle fire.
  Perhaps in a pattern of 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, etc...
  
• And movement/accuracy penalties stop you from jump sniping.

MWO implemented ghost heat, double armor and nerfed jump jets.
This is all in an attempt for player to hit more different locations with more trigger pulls.
This is exactly what those balancing mechanics did.



If MWO wants to keep the BattleTech/MechWarrior game, then fine.
But I'm telling you now.
It cannot be balanced.

Not with perfect weapon convergence.
And a lack of a heat scale.

[culverin]

Marmon Rzohr, on 11 October 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

It just might be wise to throw the BT rulebooks away, since this is a very different game. Attempting to preserve turn-based values and systems when moving into real time is a risky move at the best of time.

The rule books were based off 30 seconds.
It's not that they should throw the rulebooks away.
They should be following them first.

Then instead of re-inventing tried, tested and true mechanics which are crictical to the balance of the weight, damage and crit slots,
They should tweak with "real time" balancing balancing issues:
- Weapon recycle rates.
- Cone-of-fire convergence rates for the different weapons.

Marmon Rzohr, on 11 October 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Yes, MWO differs quite a bit from classic BT as is, but perhaps it needs an even bigger rethink. Look at JJs for instance. In the game as it is now, they are used both as a mobility tool (as intended) and as a sniping tool, of all things.

Please don't blame the jump jets.
Blame the fact they they through out movement accuracy penalties.

If those existed.
Jump sniping wouldn't even be possible.

[Gaan Cathal]

culverin, on 11 October 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Table top is balanced!

A short survey I did a while ago of my Wargaming friends and friends-of-friends (and my own reading of some of the sourcebooks) leads me to brand this statement , and ergo everything following, false. It's not a very well balanced game at all. That doesn't, for the record, make it a bad game. It doesn't, however, make it balanced.

And even if it was, no you cannot translate turn based verbatim into realtime. It does not work. It also doesn't matter to a resonable proportion of the player base who've never touched BTech and want a new Mechwarrior game, not a newform direct TT->RT transfer. The Mechwarrior games have moved away from TT rules over time as they were gradually shown not to work in an RT environment and worked around/replaced. We don't need to go backwards.

[LastPaladin]

William Mountbank, on 11 October 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

combined with my own expectation of a sprawling strategic/tactical game pitting player groups against each other across multiple battles

Now this would make things interesting. They did that in the Crescent Hawk's Revenge, having multi-part battles where you only got only minimal repairs/reloading done between stages. Adds a whole new layer of strategy to the game.

[Malsumis]

Imagine how hard it would be to down a Spider if we DIDN'T have weapon convergence and had to rely on a cone of fire. Without weapon convergence the outcome of games would be complete dice rolls. If you don't like getting shot in a specific location due to having an XL engine or weapon placement then I suggest you use terrain more and also twist your torso.

I don't want to stand in an open field firing back and forth waiting for that lucky dice roll to win. I want to pick my targets apart or find their weakness and exploit it.

If you want random hit location, go back to playing TT.

[Gallowglas]

"Realistic BT action"? What does that even mean?

[Roughneck45]

Gallowglas, on 11 October 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

"Realistic BT action"? What does that even mean?

Exactly what I thought lol

[FupDup]

Gallowglas, on 11 October 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

"Realistic BT action"? What does that even mean?

I'm not sure the first two items can even coexist simultaneously.

[Shadey99]

culverin, on 11 October 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

The rule books were based off 30 seconds.

I cannot think that much of your post (even if I agree with some of the sentiment) due to this error right here. TT/RPG BT is based on 10 second turns. Weapons fire, heat, and movement where all within these 10 second windows. Also the heatscale is only in effect for carried over heat, MWO would need a 'heat cahce' to imitate it within the current implementation.

[D1al T0ne]

Welcome to Call of Duty with 'Mechs.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Gaan Cathal, on 11 October 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

[/size]

A short survey I did a while ago of my Wargaming friends and friends-of-friends (and my own reading of some of the sourcebooks) leads me to brand this statement , and ergo everything following, false. It's not a very well balanced game at all. That doesn't, for the record, make it a bad game. It doesn't, however, make it balanced.

And even if it was, no you cannot translate turn based verbatim into realtime. It does not work. It also doesn't matter to a resonable proportion of the player base who've never touched BTech and want a new Mechwarrior game, not a newform direct TT->RT transfer. The Mechwarrior games have moved away from TT rules over time as they were gradually shown not to work in an RT environment and worked around/replaced. We don't need to go backwards.

Tabletop wasn't balanced, unless you played a ruleset that and honor rules that forbid just about everything.

[Joseph Mallan]

culverin, on 11 October 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

The table top is also based around a 30-second turn cycle.
Heat generation from movement and dissipation from heatsinks is spaced out over that 30-second period.

10 seconds to move & fire. Your enemy to move and fire, both use physical attacks, and vent heat. Rinse wash repeat every 10 seconds.