55 replies to this topic

[metro]

Everyone.........Breathe!!

This issue is being posted all over these forums, and every thread has a different title.

The Devs have already said.......incase you have overlooked the multiple postings on this forum....

Quote

Q. How loyal will MechWarrior® Online™ be to the tabletop rules (heat management, melee, armor penetration, etc.)?

A. We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules. Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner.

Can We please......give it a rest already.

FFS, these guys are BT/MW fans!!

For the First time, we will get a game delivered by people who believe in BT/MW, not some desk jockey from EA or elsewhere bought out and closed down , looking to s-c-r-e-w us all just so they can say they own an IP and deliver some unplayable uninteresting FPS!

Please!

Edited by metro, 15 November 2011 - 07:46 AM.

[Hunter McGee]

Once again, my "Two Cents" worth...

For those of you who have never played the TT (Table Top) game... You have no concept of what you are missing. The details, the complexity, the tactics. Insane calculations modified for everything imaginable from woods, water, previous hits taken, your speed, your targets speed, your pilots injuries, and I haven't even opened the books to check for others, but imagine a game that does all that calculating for you... in lightning fast time, from the perspective of the pilot himself. I'm not worried about the actual programming of this environment. I am more worried about the Mechwarrior Computer Game community, those who have ONLY played the PC games, not realizing that this franchise is so much more. Mechwarrior was the name of the Battletech Table Top Role Playing Game LONG before it was ever a computer game. I firmly believe that MWO will have something for all of us. We can all speculate, and jump to conclusions about what we read on the forums here, most of which is incorrect, but I think we need to all take a deep breath, and throw our undivided support behind the developers of this massive undertaking. Let's not bury the hatchet, let's throw it away. Come together as a united Battletech Community. If we have problems after the game launch, then we can settle it on the field.

Sorry if this really doesn't fit into this thread, but I am at work now, and have read so many threads today, that it is unclear which one I am even on right now.

[metro]

Hunter McGee, on 15 November 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

Sorry if this really doesn't fit into this thread, but I am at work now, and have read so many threads today, that it is unclear which one I am even on right now.

Its because they are beginning to all read the same, and sound alike......and its getting a bit ridiculous. IMO

Edited by metro, 15 November 2011 - 07:52 AM.

[Kudzu]

Cyber Carns, on 15 November 2011 - 05:46 AM, said:

So in 1000 years of Technology innovations,updates and upgrades a mech would not be able to pin point fire and hit its target with heck of alot better computers?

As has been explained multiple times across multiple threads-- in this setting, no. In fact, targeting technology is worse. It one of the things that makes Battletech different from other mecha games.

metro, on 15 November 2011 - 07:51 AM, said:

Its because they are beginning to all read the same, and sound alike......and its getting a bit ridiculous. IMO

Hopefully we'll get some good answers tomorrow and can start narrowing down our debates.

[VYCanis]

in a setting where they have fusion, in a setting where they can make weaponized particle accelerators, in a setting where they can get the precision timing to get a gauss rifle to work properly, in a setting were there is routine orbital re-entry and take off, in a setting where they can jump freaking 30 light years at a time, in a setting where they can send packets of information across the stars instantly via hpg, in a setting where they manufacture armor that can stop dead cold a hypersonic metal slug with only a few inches of material...

I refuse to accept the ****** targeting computer hypothesis, it makes no sense. you have crazy precision technology everywhere else, but somehow no one knows how to calculate simple Newtonian physics when it comes to getting a bullet to go where you want. Not being able to get a laser where you want is even more laughable. Its not just something you can "lose," its engineering at its most basic.

Especially considering that star league era tech and clan tech still somehow have the bad targeting and lousy ranges, despite neither falling under the bombed to stone age umbrella.

I said it once i'll say it again, BT ranges are an abstraction for the purpose of fitting a game onto a dinner table. even the rule books say this. i.e. that ac20 didn't miss at 200 meters, it missed at 2000. The POS targeting computers interpretation is taking the game at pure face value using no imagination and taking it literally. Do you take RISK literally? stratego? chess? warhammer?

Edited by VYCanis, 15 November 2011 - 10:01 AM.

[Kudzu]

VYCanis, on 15 November 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

in a setting where they have fusion, in a setting where they can make weaponized particle accelerators, in a setting where they can get the precision timing to get a gauss rifle to work properly, in a setting were there is routine orbital re-entry and take off, in a setting where they can jump freaking 30 light years at a time, in a setting where they can send packets of information across the stars instantly via hpg, in a setting where they manufacture armor that can stop dead cold a hypersonic metal slug with only a few inches of material...

I refuse to accept the ****** targeting computer hypothesis, it makes no sense. you have crazy precision technology everywhere else, but somehow no one knows how to calculate simple Newtonian physics when it comes to getting a bullet to go where you want. Not being able to get a laser where you want is even more laughable. Its not just something you can "lose," its engineering at its most basic.

Especially considering that star league era tech and clan tech still somehow have the bad targeting and lousy ranges, despite neither falling under the bombed to stone age umbrella.

I said it once i'll say it again, BT ranges are an abstraction for the purpose of fitting a game onto a dinner table. even the rule books say this. i.e. that ac20 didn't miss at 200 meters, it missed at 2000. The POS targeting computers interpretation is taking the game at pure face value using no imagination and taking it literally. Do you take RISK literally? stratego? chess? warhammer?

Star Wars is stupid-- jedi powers would never work! Why do they need spaceships in Star Trek when they can teleport everywhere? Warhammer is dumb, magic isn't real. Dracula is terrible, vampires don't exist!

BT is an alternate universe, get over it.

[Glare]

VYCanis, on 15 November 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

I refuse to accept the ****** targeting computer hypothesis, it makes no sense. you have crazy precision technology everywhere else, but somehow no one knows how to calculate simple Newtonian physics when it comes to getting a bullet to go where you want. Not being able to get a laser where you want is even more laughable. Its not just something you can "lose," its engineering at its most basic.
Especially considering that star league era tech and clan tech still somehow have the bad targeting and lousy ranges, despite neither falling under the bombed to stone age umbrella.

The door is that way, if it bugs you that much. This is BattleTech, it is not an extension of reality as we know it. Expecting it to be so is foolhardy.

[VYCanis]

I'm not going anywhere, i love my battletech. I don't hate that the tabletop has crap ranges and high miss factor. Thats part of the gameplay of the TT.

I simply don't believe that microscopic ranges and poor targeting apply to the actual fiction or "reality" of the setting. Not anymore than the boardgame ranges for any other tabletop game respective to its fictional universe.

To me battletech is about the factions, the mechs, the people, the tech, the locational damage, the timeline. In my own head, iI prefer to justify things to where they make sense, rather that settling on stuff that bulldozes suspension of disbelief.

[MaddMaxx]

VYCanis, on 15 November 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'm not going anywhere, i love my battletech. I don't hate that the tabletop has crap ranges and high miss factor. Thats part of the gameplay of the TT.

I simply don't believe that microscopic ranges and poor targeting apply to the actual fiction or "reality" of the setting. Not anymore than the boardgame ranges for any other tabletop game respective to its fictional universe.

To me battletech is about the factions, the mechs, the people, the tech, the locational damage, the timeline. In my own head, iI prefer to justify things to where they make sense, rather that settling on stuff that bulldozes suspension of disbelief.

Given that, I guess we need Maps that span continent size areas, drops zone that would take 3 days to reach objectives and never see an enemy mech we could not hit 15 km out.

That is not FUN either. Most War games based on modern time are force to reduce ranges and map sizes to "speed up" play. Driving across Europe in a tank hoping to encounter an enemy is bad game design.

Same here. Sure the Tech says one thing but to have FUN it must be compressed down into useable fighting areas. OR actually scale everything to real size accordingly. In the end the result is the same, just the scale of things change.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 15 November 2011 - 11:18 AM.

[Kudzu]

VYCanis, on 15 November 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'm not going anywhere, i love my battletech. I don't hate that the tabletop has crap ranges and high miss factor. Thats part of the gameplay of the TT.

I simply don't believe that microscopic ranges and poor targeting apply to the actual fiction or "reality" of the setting. Not anymore than the boardgame ranges for any other tabletop game respective to its fictional universe.

To me battletech is about the factions, the mechs, the people, the tech, the locational damage, the timeline. In my own head, iI prefer to justify things to where they make sense, rather that settling on stuff that bulldozes suspension of disbelief.

The closer you look at it the less sense it makes, kinda like picking apart an action movie. Mechs nailing each other from miles away aren't nearly as awesome as getting in close and beating the crap out of each other. So instead step back and just enjoy it for what it is rather than for how accurate it is to reality.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

The closer you look at it the less sense it makes, kinda like picking apart an action movie. Mechs nailing each other from miles away aren't nearly as awesome as getting in close and beating the crap out of each other. So instead step back and just enjoy it for what it is rather than for how accurate it is to reality.

Exactly. Think of Fallout, if you've played it. Why aren't there more jumpships? IS doesn'tt know how to make them anymore. Generations of Technology was lost, and the inner sphere is barely able to piece together what they have. Think of some backwater planet with its one factory and few mechs. All plans are based on old plans... they're thinking inside the box, not out of it, because they have to get Mechs on the field, they're at War. Imagine if just you and some of your auto mechanic buddies were stranded on some island with some metal and wires, some guns etc. You think you're going to invent anything new? You KNOW light speed exists, and long range weapons, but darn it, not a scientist or a science lab to be seen. So, you start inserting slot a into slot b and hoping for the best with what you have. That's the BTU. It makes sense, in the 31st centrury, there is only war... and loss...

[TheRulesLawyer]

VYCanis, on 15 November 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

I said it once i'll say it again, BT ranges are an abstraction for the purpose of fitting a game onto a dinner table. even the rule books say this. i.e. that ac20 didn't miss at 200 meters, it missed at 2000. The POS targeting computers interpretation is taking the game at pure face value using no imagination and taking it literally. Do you take RISK literally? stratego? chess? warhammer?

That's a reasonable interpretation. Ground scale is a huge issue in TT games. You either have semi realistic weapon ranges and no movement, or lots of movement and wacky weapons range scales. Making the weapons ranges wacky tends to better game play.

[metro]

MaddMaxx, on 15 November 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

... Driving across Europe in a tank hoping to encounter an enemy is bad game design....

Yes......but like it was in MPBT....driving across Europe and all you got to do was fight, was the alternative, why?? the players were there and online....

[VYCanis]

Sorry if i was was coming across as a bit caustic earlier, and i understand your concerns,
but 'm not sure it would be as imbalanced as people think it would be, if any weapon could hit out to LOS.

It doesn't stop the BF games from being fun, or any other game without arbitrary weapon limits. I honestly think the idea of extreme range BT could be something fun, tactical, and still preserve the brawls we all love.

Its just a matter of making sure the use of the weapons remains fun and requires work. Projectile speeds and ballistic drop that require you to lead targets and adjust aim, damage dropoff for energy weapons over distance, flight time for missiles that actually matters. And throughout all that the easiest way to hit someone usually does involve getting up close and personal anyway. Though it would also greatly depend on map design to make sure the amount of full blown open areas was balanced correctly with areas of significant cover.

Its just always been really annoying to be carrying around a gun the size of a dump truck and watching the shells evaporate in midair for no reason.

[AdamBaines]

Man, we don't even know what the Devs truly have planned for this game or what they are going to deliver. Just imagine how the outrage will flow once we get real hard info on how th game is going to work. It's going to be a madhouse in here :-) I have somethings Id like to see or not see, but in the end, I love Battletech so I will be here playing no matter what.

[MaddMaxx]

metro, on 15 November 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yes......but like it was in MPBT....driving across Europe and all you got to do was fight, was the alternative, why?? the players were there and online....

Scale of the conflicts available tend to directly relate to force sizes involved. According to current info, we will Lance on Lance and perhaps multi Lance (2-3) vs multi Lance conflict. Given that constraint (hoping it grows with time) the conflict area needs to reflect that.

Surely the Dev have decided how long a standard engagement will last (give or take) and will base all other things around that decision. All we have to do is wait and see what that decision turns out to be.