34 replies to this topic

[PhyroPhyre]

I believe that MWO should not try and follow TT so closely and the devs, as artists and designers, should develop the game how they want.

I'm not saying the MWO is in a bad state now, or that TT isn't a good system, but TT is a turn-based game, while MWO is an real-time action game. Should MWO try and be a TT simulator? Isn't that what MechWarrior: Tactics is for?

I believe that MWO would be a better game if the developers and designers could add and change things how they saw fit and what they judged would make the game better.

Half of the issues I read on the forums are from designs made and implemented that exist in TT but are difficult to implement and keep balanced. Case in point: ECM. The solutions to these problems always tend be steering away from what would otherwise be canonically correct.

Do you guys think that some things in TT rules are impossible to implement correctly in which the game remains balanced?

Would people baulk at the idea of PGI designing their own 'Mechs or weapons?

I understand that MWO has been designed from the ground up in the fashion it is now, so changing the core principal of it is nonsensical, but I'd like to know what you guys think.

Please, die-hard fans, I honestly do not mean to offend you. I see a lot of people bad-mouthing the devs and the decisions they make. None of that here please.

[FinsT]

Good point about mighty difference which inevitably exists between turn-based and real-time.

I guess that some rules of a turn-based game would usually be impossible to implement - without harming balance, - into a real-time game indeed.

PGI designing completely their own 'mech and/or weapons, - i think this is not needed, perhaps even harmful. Mechwarrior has a rich histiry. There are lots of people who remember how it was like in Mechwarrior 2, 3, 4 and other PC games of the past. In these games (including "addons") - many more 'mech and weapons, ones which are not yet implemented into MWO, are present. Some of such weapons i mention here, but these are just few examples; list goes on to Long Tom, X-lasers, Thunderbolts, UAC/2, light gauss, bombast lasers and probably yet more.

I'd rather hope to see most or all of these implemented by PGI. Some of these can be re-designed substantially (in compare to their previous "incarnations") if needed, but hopefully not too much; it's good when a weapon still "feels" much like it was working in previous games.

MWO is "Mechwarrior" game which went "online". The best way to remain Mechwarrior game is, of course, to remain similar - in key aspects, - to what previous Mechwarrior games were. Weapons and 'mech - are key elements. PGI can go all inventive and innovative with maps, vision modes, cockpit interior etc, - but much detailed and widely known weaponry and mech designs are not to be easily discarded, me thinks.

[Wintersdark]

Ummm, yeah. Here's the thing. Your case in point, ECM? It _doesn't_ follow TT rules whatsoever, and that's been the crux of many peoples arguments against it from the very start. It doesn't even loosely resemble what it does in TT.

In fact, nearly every issuebwe have is due to departure from TT systems. Not to say that following TT would make things better - I'm not a TT purist - but don't think the messed up systems we have are due to following TT. That's simply not the case at all.

Mechs and weapons? No. These should follow TT, to the extend MWO does. The hardpoints system isn't TT, after all, nor is the easy mechlab. But the mechs and weapons are the integral parts of the setting. If PGI ran amok there, it wouldn't be Mechwarrior anymore, and that's a bad thing.

[Gaan Cathal]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Ummm, yeah. Here's the thing. Your case in point, ECM? It _doesn't_ follow TT rules whatsoever, and that's been the crux of many peoples arguments against it from the very start. It doesn't even loosely resemble what it does in TT.

I agree here insofar that a: ECM, infact the EWAR system in general doesn't mimic TT and b: if the EWAR system did mimic TT it would be a hundred times better, and a functional EWAR mechanic. However, this case is exceptional.

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

In fact, nearly every issuebwe have is due to departure from TT systems. Not to say that following TT would make things better - I'm not a TT purist - but don't think the messed up systems we have are due to following TT. That's simply not the case at all.

Absolutely not. The main issues MW:O has are due to the use of a high-capacity, low-dissipation heat model, diverging from previous Mechwarrior titles. Tabletop doesn't even have a mechanic for this, since we're talking about realtime dissipation, not 10s easymaths dissipation. Likewise an insistence that an LB-X 10 should do 10 damage because it's called and LB-X 10 (just leave it at ten pellets, job done) and "the last thing we need is more changes from TT" is stopping it getting a per-pellet damage buff to counteract the spread damage effect.

Infact, the LB-X 10 is a good example of where diverging from TT is good. PGI have made it the game's shotgun weapon, whilst steering clear of including the single-slug alternate fire. This is a smart move (arguments about shotgun vs canister shot aside) because LB-X weapons as written utterly invalidate standard ACs of the same calibre (lighter, less tons, same damage, more range and a bonus shotgun mode) to the extent that even in TT it was recognised and standard ACs were crudely 'patched' by giving them all sorts of extra ammo options.

And an example of where sticking to TT has been bad? Slavish insistence on never adjusting critslots/tonnage in order to preserve useless stock builds has left the Pulse Lasers (amongst others) in a deplorable state because their increased damage + damage application is barely worth the tonnage increase along, never mind increased tonnage and reduced range and increased heat. But no, far better they remain 'true to TT' than useful, giving us a hot, short range, heavy variant laser that does marginally more damage.

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Mechs and weapons? No. These should follow TT, to the extend MWO does. The hardpoints system isn't TT, after all, nor is the easy mechlab. But the mechs and weapons are the integral parts of the setting. If PGI ran amok there, it wouldn't be Mechwarrior anymore, and that's a bad thing.

Broadly true.

[Karl Streiger]

OK first question what are the current TT standards - that keept true?

First the critical system:

Each Mech has 12 criticals in eachs arm and torso section - no matter the size of that zone.
The engine has always 6 or 12 criticals no matter the size.

Critical hits are rolled - or it looks that way - like in TT: same 1/12 chance to hit a specific component = pure luck - the 10 points per item - is a derivied idea from tactical operations.

- next true TT are the hitpoints of armor and internals (x2) but still the same - no matter the hitbox look like (doesn't make sense that the CT of the Dragon has the same armor as the CT on the Quickdraw.

- next true TT are the weapon damage - roughly with some changing to balance them - without a stronger impact off the range brackets. That is why the MLAS deal 4 heat and the Large Laser only 7 - while damage for LLAS was strongly increased.
AC 2 deals 2 damage - with an absurd rate of fire.

X3kutor, on 13 October 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Please, die-hard fans, I honestly do not mean to offend you. I see a lot of people bad-mouthing the devs and the decisions they make. None of that here please.

I would call my self a die - hard - but I don't think that TT does any good to MWO at the current state.

The base principle of MWO is - fast paced - with a perfect aim system without any dispersion.
So i have done it just for fun for the PPC - the TT aquivalent is a 22.5 damage weapon with 22.5 heat that works with the link to a targeting computer. (there is a chance in TT allready to have such a weapon: Heavy PPC, with PPC Capacitor linked to a targeting computer only IS Tech weight 14t - and deal 20damage and 20 heat)

OK as you see I have a equotation between TT and MWO. The average MWO pilot is the same as a Veteran TT pilot.
That in mind you can calculate things. It is not 100% accurate.

But it means that armor with given hitboxes has to increase at factor 4 instead of 2... making every Mech into a zombie - lighst can take the damage of current assault Mechs. I don't think that will do any good eighter.

The best way is to remove/change the hitboxes - and how damage is applied (no ablative armor reducing - but penetrating hits with rising internal damage - that degenerate the ability of your Mech to fight on)

But none of these changes is easy to implement.

[Wintersdark]

Gaan Cathal, on 14 October 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Absolutely not. The main issues MW:O has are due to the use of a high-capacity, low-dissipation heat model, diverging from previous Mechwarrior titles. Tabletop doesn't even have a mechanic for this, since we're talking about realtime dissipation, not 10s easymaths dissipation.

This is incorrect. Koniving has posted (in exhaustive detail) how using a system much more like tabletops would be far superior, specifically going with low capacity high dissipation as per tabletop rules extrapolated from 10s turns. TT specifically does not increase capacity and assumes weapons are essentially chainfired by its nature.

MWO's heat system is awful, but the increasing capacity is entirely non-TT.

Quote

Likewise an insistence that an LB-X 10 should do 10 damage because it's called and LB-X 10 (just leave it at ten pellets, job done) and "the last thing we need is more changes from TT" is stopping it getting a per-pellet damage buff to counteract the spread damage effect.

Infact, the LB-X 10 is a good example of where diverging from TT is good. PGI have made it the game's shotgun weapon, whilst steering clear of including the single-slug alternate fire. This is a smart move (arguments about shotgun vs canister shot aside) because LB-X weapons as written utterly invalidate standard ACs of the same calibre (lighter, less tons, same damage, more range and a bonus shotgun mode) to the extent that even in TT it was recognised and standard ACs were crudely 'patched' by giving them all sorts of extra ammo options.

agreed. There are a lot of things in tabletop where item B is explicitly better than the (normally older tech) item A, and this is useless for MWO: people would just ignore the crappier variants. See also: how PGI is rebalancing Clan tech to not instantly obsolete IS equipment in game.

Quote

And an example of where sticking to TT has been bad? Slavish insistence on never adjusting critslots/tonnage in order to preserve useless stock builds has left the Pulse Lasers (amongst others) in a deplorable state because their increased damage + damage application is barely worth the tonnage increase along, never mind increased tonnage and reduced range and increased heat. But no, far better they remain 'true to TT' than useful, giving us a hot, short range, heavy variant laser that does marginally more damage.

I'd argue this is more a casualty of the borked heat syst utterly trashing the usefulness of stock mechs (specifically how terribad SHS end up being) than the weapon size and tonnage.

Our pulse lasers for example can be fixed without weight and tonnage changes. They just need a few more balancing passes for heat/range/damage/timing; or potentially a firing method redesign entirely. They're just poorly balances overall right now.

I'm right with keeping the slots and tonnage equal to TT so people can build and plan they mechs as they are expected to be. We have more than enough tunable factors remaining.

[Karl Streiger]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

MWO's heat system is awful, but the increasing capacity is entirely non-TT.

That is wrong - or at least not really correct

If i have 2 ER-PPCs in TT with 15 DHS - how much heat did i have after i fired those ER-PPCs without moving and 0 heat at the begining of the turn?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 October 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Karl Streiger, on 14 October 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

That is wrong - or at least not really correct

If i have 2 ER-PPCs in TT with 15 DHS - how much heat did i have after i fired those ER-PPCs without moving and 0 heat at the begining of the turn?

you didn't fire them at the beginning of the turn, you fired them spaced throughout the turn. This is why you can fire more than 30 heat worth in a turn, and why those weapons all hit different target components/don't hit at all.

Also, TT DHS where of course DHS, not 1.4andsometimes2.0HS.

Our system encourages alpha striking, hence ghost heat to fix that. If we'd gone more TT with a hard heat cap, we'd be forced to space out firing more - which also directly reduces convergence issues (which in turn are why crazy builds like 6ppc stalkers could be such a problem, and is why we need doubled armour and whatnot).

[Joseph Mallan]

Gaan Cathal, on 14 October 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Infact, the LB-X 10 is a good example of where diverging from TT is good. PGI have made it the game's shotgun weapon, whilst steering clear of including the single-slug alternate fire. This is a smart move (arguments about shotgun vs canister shot aside) because LB-X weapons as written utterly invalidate standard ACs of the same calibre (lighter, less tons, same damage, more range and a bonus shotgun mode) to the extent that even in TT it was recognised and standard ACs were crudely 'patched' by giving them all sorts of extra ammo options.

An LB-X AC is a Shot Gun capable of firing Buck or Slugs. But I ask you which would you use if you had the choice? A 12 gauge Shot Gun or the AA12???

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 October 2013 - 04:21 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

you didn't fire them at the beginning of the turn, you fired them spaced throughout the turn. This is why you can fire more than 30 heat worth in a turn, and why those weapons all hit different target components/don't hit at all.

That is interesting - you seem to know the S7 rules:
that means we have a dissipation of 30 per 2.5 sec cyle
each ER-PPC does 60 heat.

Given the first round and shootng the first PPC.
Our Mech is at 30 heat. (60-30 = 30)
Waiting for the second round reduces heat towards 0
in third round we fire the second ER-PPC for another 30 heat in the end of this round
After the fourth round we are at zero heat.

What about firing them both in the first round? Will give you 90 heat in the first round...slowly dissipating...

However in every case you have a internal heat capacity that will not be shown on your heat scale.
Even with Solaris 7 rules firing a single Medium Pulse Laser will not move any bit on your heat scale as long as you have at least 12 Double Heatsinks.

So I hope it is clear - that increasing heat capacity per heat sink - is indeed true to TT.
The only difference is when does the "heat scale start"
for example for a AWS-8Q with 28 SHS the heat scale of 5 is at 33 heat
for a JaegerMech Stock with 10 SHS the heat scale of 5 is at 15 heat.

[C E Dwyer]

soon as pgi start developing more weapons and own design mechs it stops being mech warrior and just becomes hawkken or another stompy robot game

[General Taskeen]

Karl Streiger, on 14 October 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

So I hope it is clear - that increasing heat capacity per heat sink - is indeed true to TT.

Karl, from what I have observed thus far Beta Testing this game, this type of heat sink design does not work. It was never present in any Mech Warrior game, since previous developers realized it would be silly if a person has less heat sinks has less over all heat capacity with someone with more. All they did was make a "fixed value" (maximum heat any Mech could handle) and balanced around it by disappation rates. I agreed with the past design of heatsinks in Mech games, and I still think its the best way.

I think that's more realistic and reasonable when converting heatsinks into a real-time presentation.

Otherwise, PGI's new heat invention wheel, with convulted mechanics added to it, is entirely ruining in MWO, imo.



And to the OP, not sure I'm understanding your position on ECM. ECM in TT was meant to prevent indirect fire. You could still fire your LRMs if you had LOS on an ECM Mech, which is how has it worked in any previous Mech Warrior game.

Edited by General Taskeen, 14 October 2013 - 05:28 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

General Taskeen, on 14 October 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

I think that's more realistic and reasonable when converting heatsinks into a real-time presentation.

Otherwise, PGI's new heat invention wheel, with convulted mechanics added to it, is entirely ruining in MWO, imo.

Oh scrap.... I have to excuse myself.

You are right, you too wintersdark. What i have mistaken as "internal" capacity is just the "dissipation" of heat in a given time frame - no internal capacity.

increasing heat capacity and dissipation - turn the MWO SHS to a kind of DHS (1 point increase capacity 1 point dissipation for 10 seconds) and the MWO DHS into a kind of superb DHS....

so the extra capacity has to die. But in the other hand if i have only a threshhold of 30 i will never be able to fire 2 ER-PPC at once without overheating - increasing the pin point dps efficency of kinky Quad AC 5 builds.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 October 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[PhyroPhyre]

Interesting discussion. I can see reason in both sides of the argument.

It is EXTREMELY important that the game remain as true as possible to the Lore of the BattleTech universe and to previous MechWarrior titles. Straying too far from this will damage the game, for sure.

On the other hand, the way some game mechanics work in TT transcribe poorly to real-time play. Heat generation and weapon damage are good examples. MWO benefits from more or less redesigning how these mechanics operate but getting something so complex to work correctly will undoubtly take a lot of trial and error.

It seems there may not truely be a way to make the game cater towards what everyone wants to do in their mechs. The point about a heat system allowing PPC boaters with pinpoint accuracy to exist is well made, as it prevented me from wanting to play the game when it existed. On the other hand, the heat mechanic in place to deter boaters does inadvertently affect other aspects of the game.

So really, the system that works for everyone can't really work and catering towards the majority of players takes precedence. It will make people feel forced into a box a bit, but it comes down to "tough, the game breaks otherwise". Unfortuantely, this can sometimes mean moving away from TT rules and BattleTech lore, if it means a balanced game.

Having never played TT (I can only gather info from what people state in this forum, and Youtue videos), I appreciate you guys drawing the parallels between TT and MWO into the discussion.

What I gather from the discussion:

The discussion has made it apparent that MWO can NOT use the heat mechanic in similar fashion to TT. There shouldn't be a chance of missing your target when your reticle is centred on them. Since weapon convergence is realistic in real time play, the pinpoint accuracy of weapons means that if there isn't a system in place to significantly reduce your dps, everyone dies really fast. This might make for more canonically accurate BattleMech warfare (I have no idea), but it probably would deteriate the game. Balancing weapon tonnage, damage, heat as well as armour and hitboxes across a wide variety of Mech geometry and loadouts is obviously very, very difficult. Tweaking one factor inherently breaks another.

Which features should remain true to TT rules? Which features/mechanics should be designed from the ground up?

[Sandpit]

Uhm..... This is MECH Warrior not "Insert stompy robot title" so yes it needs to stay as true to the IP as possible. I didn't pay money to play a non-battletech game......

The ONLY exception I see that would be ok is remodeling some of the mechs they can't get legal rights for and using them as replacements.

[GoManGo]

TT/BT/mechwarrior were all great for games novels miniatures ETC. But they all became dated to a point and needed envisioned like MWO has done. Some Mechs designs should have been left alone because they were a unique Design in the BattleTech Universe. Some of the MWO mech designs are becoming bland and canned they all look similar in many ways where most BattleTech Mechs had there own unique design. As far as the core game design itself I don't really like it I much prefer what MechWarrior4 was over MWO any day. PGI should have just updated MWO to be a New MechWarrior game not a World of Tanks Clone. They also could have even gone farther in development by making the game like MechWarrior was and adding characters for ground and mech battles in the BattleTech Universe PVE and PVP.In just over 2 years have seen a company and a IP go down the drain because of bad game design logic and implementation.

Edited by GoManGo, 14 October 2013 - 06:51 AM.

[Heffay]

TT rules and the BT universe in general were poorly thought out and the implementation (such as Clans) were just... yeah. They worked to a degree, but let's not pretend that it was the pinnacle of game design.

A reboot of the IP is probably a good idea, and MWO can provide that. The universe is broadly the same, but some specific details should be significantly different, under the guise of good game play and immersion.

[GoManGo]

Heffay, on 14 October 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

TT rules and the BT universe in general were poorly thought out and the implementation (such as Clans) were just... yeah. They worked to a degree, but let's not pretend that it was the pinnacle of game design.

A reboot of the IP is probably a good idea, and MWO can provide that. The universe is broadly the same, but some specific details should be significantly different, under the guise of good game play and immersion.

MWO cannot provide anything all past MechWarrior games were AAA titles and above a 8 star rating plus one was game of the year? MWO is NOT a original game design it is a copied cloned version of WORLD OF TANKS. There I caped it for you so you know. MWO could have been the pinnacle of all MechWarrior games instead the devs would not listen to reason from fans and players and produced in my opinion a bad game in the MechWarrior IP series. GAHH I would not even say its MechWarrior more like WORLD OF MECHS. And no dammm way is this a reboot of a MechWarrior game.

[PhyroPhyre]

GoManGo, on 14 October 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

PGI should have just updated MWO to be a New MechWarrior game not a World of Tanks Clone. They also could have even gone farther in development by making the game like MechWarrior was and adding characters for ground and mech battles in the BattleTech Universe PVE and PVP.In just over 2 years have seen a company and a IP go down the drain because of bad game design logic and implementation.

I can see your point, but I'd prefer not to have MechWarrior: Call of Duty. I don't believe the game design is bad, it is striving to be unique. Development may appear slow but this is the result of modern game designers including the community. Don't **** on it or it will go back the way of not knowing the game is in developent until it's released and you got NO say in how it was made.

Heffay, on 14 October 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

TT rules and the BT universe in general were poorly thought out and the implementation (such as Clans) were just... yeah. They worked to a degree, but let's not pretend that it was the pinnacle of game design.

A reboot of the IP is probably a good idea, and MWO can provide that. The universe is broadly the same, but some specific details should be significantly different, under the guise of good game play and immersion.

I agree completely. Well put.

GoManGo, on 14 October 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

MWO cannot provide anything all past MechWarrior games were AAA titles and above a 8 star rating plus one was game of the year?... GAHH I would not even say its MechWarrior more like WORLD OF MECHS. And no dammm way is this a reboot of a MechWarrior game.

I think this is the point. It's not suppose to be a previous MechWarrior title. It is, however, unfortunate that fans of MW2 - MW4 and TT feel let down by the way this game is heading. Most people are upset about development time and minor balancing issues. Does this game really, truely miss the mark on what MechWarrior is (not just what you think it should be, based on previous titles)? Should this game be called something other than MechWarrior but still include BattleTech universe like Mech Assault?

Am I alone in feeling that the community is taking this openness into the development and direction of the game for granted?

Again, thanks for the insight into how long term fans are taking to MWO. I am intrigued into the lore but very new to it.

[GoManGo]

X3kutor said--->I think this is the point. It's not suppose to be a previous MechWarrior title. It is, however, unfortunate that fans of MW2 - MW4 and TT feel let down by the way this game is heading. Most people are upset about development time and minor balancing issues. Does this game really, truely miss the mark on what MechWarrior is (not just what you think it should be, based on previous titles)? Should this game be called something other than MechWarrior but still include BattleTech universe like Mech Assault?
And here is the real problem PGI promoted this game as a updated version of older PC MechWarrior games rolled in with TT rules/values and BT mechs and lore to gain the started money for MWO which equals 5+ million dollars. Then they came out with MWO which is nothing like they promised and you wonder why so many fans and players of this once great IP are just plain pissed off. If PGI would have stuck to there word and produced a new MechWarrior game only modernized with PVE PVP game lobby's and chat and private matches ETC maybe so many would not have complained on the forums so much. And yes if they knew it was not MechWarrior to start with they should have called the game WORLD OF MECHS or whatever.Plus if I looked at there financials I would bet not even half of the money was used on MWO. Instead of making 1 great game then making more they used up the money on 3 games that all might fail.

Edited by GoManGo, 14 October 2013 - 08:10 AM.