26 replies to this topic

[Cake Bandit]

I think that computers could stand to track each individual missile in salvos. I'm pretty sure they did it in Mechwarrior 2, why not bring it back? Playing mechwarrior 4 I'm pretty sure they're lumped into groups of five or something like that.

[Hylius]

Yeah, MW4 lumped them into groups of 5 for LRMs (with AMS/LAMS taking them down in those groups as well.) I'd like to see them individually tracking as well, mainly for evading and rocking.

Evading as in less penalty if one of them goes haywire (MW4 had that problem a lot with me, one of the reasons I never used LRMs in that game) and it allows a good pilot to spread the damage around better (I'd rather have 20 missiles spread across two arms and my torso, even with splash, as opposed to taking all 20 into one arm.)

Rocking because I'd rather have a 'mech getting hit be rocked continuously (even in small bits) instead of just in bursts.

Also it makes unguided fire (or trying to curve a guided salvo) more interesting. Out of all the games I preferred MW2's missile system. But that's just me.

[wolf74]

LRM/MRM - Groups of 5, for Flight paths, but Each missile is it own model for being shot down
SRM - 1 missle flight paths

[Hodo]

This would be fine if you are using a NARC beacon or a FCS system. Otherwise the missiles were dumb fire rockets. They didnt really track on jack.

[Max Liao]

Missiles per the tabletop game are

• SRM: Damage location recorded for each missile.
  
  • If 3 missiles hit, you roll individual locations for each missile.
• LRM: Damage location recorded in groups of 5.
  
  • If 8 missiles hit, you roll location for 5, then roll location again for 3.

This concept should be maintained in the MWO game as well.

Anti-missile pods should shoot down 1d6/2d6, and expend ammo as appropriate.

This is another situation where the tabletop game seamlessly and flawlessly ports over to the action game.

[Cake Bandit]

But you'd have to determine how many missiles hit before you rolled for the locations of your damages. If you lump into fives then you'll never have the odd 3 or 8 to take into account.

If you track individually, you'll need to account for the damage of each missile individually on individual components. AMS should probably just make a check on every missile that comes into range and deal with it. I need to pick up a copy of the rules and play it I guess, but this doesn't seem like a seamless integration to me.

[Max Liao]

Cake Bandit, on 15 November 2011 - 03:48 AM, said:

But you'd have to determine how many missiles hit before you rolled for the locations of your damages. If you lump into fives then you'll never have the odd 3 or 8 to take into account.

If you track individually, you'll need to account for the damage of each missile individually on individual components. AMS should probably just make a check on every missile that comes into range and deal with it. I need to pick up a copy of the rules and play it I guess, but this doesn't seem like a seamless integration to me.

• Squeeze the trigger || Make a to-hit roll
  
• Game code indicates a hit || Dice indicate a hit
  
• Game code determines how many missiles hit || Dice roll indicates the number of missiles that hit
  
• Game code determines that 8 missiles hit 5 fly into the Center torso and 3 fly into the left leg || Roll indicates that 8 missiles hit, damage location rolls indicate that 5 hit the center torso and 3 hit the left leg.

Since a computer can process this instantly there would be no lag or pause, and the visuals can match the 'rolls'; and it can all be done via the 25+ year old charts we all know and love.

[Captain Hat]

Max Liao, on 15 November 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

Missiles per the tabletop game are

• SRM: Damage location recorded for each missile.
  
  • If 3 missiles hit, you roll individual locations for each missile.
• LRM: Damage location recorded in groups of 5.
  
  • If 8 missiles hit, you roll location for 5, then roll location again for 3.

This concept should be maintained in the MWO game as well.




Anti-missile pods should shoot down 1d6/2d6, and expend ammo as appropriate.

This is another situation where the tabletop game seamlessly and flawlessly ports over to the action game.

No it isn't. This is another example of the exact reason why paying attention to the tabletop game is counterproductive to effective computer game design. The AMS should have a set accuracy and ROF, and THAT should be the determining factor on how effective it is. It would be on the tabletop if the game could afford the extra complexity, and it SHOULD be on the computer because the game CAN afford the extra complexity.

Missiles should be tracked individually. It is a flat-out better system and modern computers are well capable of handling the extra work, therefore there is literally no good reason (aside from possibly coding efficiency if the devs are running short of time) why it should not be done.

You need to abandon your frankly daft idea that the tabletop Battletech game system was somehow ideal. It isn't. It is, as with all such things, an horrific kludge of conflicting aims designed to include as much detail as possible while keeping the game playable.

Don't get me wrong, I love the tabletop game, but it and its rules are almost entirely bereft of relevance to this kind of computer game and you guys need to accept that or one of two things will happen: Either you will hate this game, or this game will fail because what looks to you like a faithful adaptation of what you know and love will just look like horrible game design to everybody else.

Edited by Captain Hat, 15 November 2011 - 04:12 AM.

[Linkin]

I agree, missiles should be tracked individually, as opposed to a whole salvo, or groups. Makes the dynamics of using and defending against them more realistic, and much more interesting, good suggestion.

[Cake Bandit]

Max Liao, on 15 November 2011 - 04:02 AM, said:

• Squeeze the trigger || Make a to-hit roll
  
• Game code indicates a hit || Dice indicate a hit
  
• Game code determines how many missiles hit || Dice roll indicates the number of missiles that hit
  
• Game code determines that 8 missiles hit 5 fly into the Center torso and 3 fly into the left leg || Roll indicates that 8 missiles hit, damage location rolls indicate that 5 hit the center torso and 3 hit the left leg.

Since a computer can process this instantly there would be no lag or pause, and the visuals can match the 'rolls'; and it can all be done via the 25+ year old charts we all know and love.

I can see that working for seeking missiles, but what about dumbfire missiles? That leads to a sort of pre-destination based on current events. If a mech could manage to slip itself behind a wall or another mech the decision that he was going to take damage in those specific areas would have been predetermined and might not make a lot of sense.

As for assigning the damage area after a hit, I'm a little worried that this might lead to the side effect of landing a bunch of shots into the side of a mech and dealing center-torso damage or leg hits.

I'm concerned there might be a whole mess of clipping errors and inconsistencies that would pop up if we force visuals around mechanics like that.

[Max Liao]

I hate having to constantly repost this for people:
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.

I, for one, am not looking for 21st Century reality. As other threads have stated, that would include beyond visual range attacking, chemical-based laser processing, windage sighting, etc. I (and quite a few people on this site) are looking for BATTLETECH, and not the **** that was sold to us as MechWarrior.

Since they have stated, "We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules." I expect them to do so - unless they are completely unable to do so in the translation from a turn based tabletop game into a real time shooter. All aspects that can translate over need to be translated over.

Quote

The AMS should have a set accuracy and ROF, and THAT should be the determining factor on how effective it is.

In BattleTech canon (rules and novels) this is not the case, therefore it should not be the case in this game.

[Captain Hat]

Then while you may be in the majority here, Max, you are a rare creature indeed in the wider world. Which is, really, the problem.

And just to address one of your points- AMS systems are, with one or two exceptions, very similar to modern countermissile systems in that they basically employ an extremely rapid-fire gun to shoot down missiles.

That gun will generally have a set chance per shot to hit an incoming missile.

That probability (for a rotary gun like the one usually depicted as an AMS gun) will be something along the lines of the accuracy of the gun's tracking system multiplied by the density of the missiles in the volley multiplied by a constant. As the density of the volley decreases, the probability of successive bullets hitting anything also decreases. Missiles going off close to other missiles will have a probability of knocking them out of action also.

All of this can be calculated in real time by a modern computer without the computer really noticing the extra processing.

This is a much more accurate way of treating the problem- and "in universe" with the exception of flak systems (which the traditional AMS doesn't seem to be from any of the descriptions I've read) this is exactly how it works, whether the rules acknowledge it or not.

As a sidenote, tracking individual missiles will also help in spreading damage across a 'mech, which is a problem oft reported with MW games in the past.

Whether they'll do anything like it or not? Another question entirely, of course.

Edited by Captain Hat, 15 November 2011 - 04:56 AM.

[Max Liao]

I'm assuming that your comment is based on the fact that many people want a realistic shooter ... if I'm wrong, the rest of what I type is moot.

There are plenty of realistic (and semi-realistic) shooters out there - Battlefield 2142, MechWarrior Living Legends, the MechWarrior series, etc. If the FAQ had stated that they intend to make a pure shooter (ala the aforementioned titles) I wouldn't even be posting here, as I'd have ZERO interest.

I hated the multilayer versions of every MechWarrior game, I don't pilot vehicles in 2142, and MWLL I honestly haven't tried. Looks great, but it's still just a shooter. As long as this game retains its BattleTech roots and errs on the side of BattleTech over Battlefield 3/MechWarrior, I will continue to be passionate about it ... and fully anxious to play. The moment they decide this game is a pure twitch-based shooter/ultra realistic, I'm out.

First they changed from the 3015-3048 era, to 3048 (3049 at launch), which, in and of itself, lessens my interest to nearly zero, but I'm a BattleTech lover and I don't want that one issue to recuse me from playing. So, here I am hoping for a game that BattleTech lovers can enjoy.

As a side note, I'm usually on the side of realism. In fact, I'm receiving a few friendly jibes from my friends regarding my stance here. If they were making Big-Mecha-Assault Online, I'd be going for realism. Since they are making MechWarrior Online, the basis for MechWarrior is BattleTech, and that's the simulation I'm hoping for. Using another of my friends comments, "You just want 3D, real-time MegaMek." Yes! That is exactly what I want.

[Cake Bandit]

The point of contention between our views here I think stems from the translation of mediums here. Regardless of how we feel about the tabletop, there is a point where the actual play of the game is going to force some deviation. I can't really say, since I've not played the Tabletop, but pre-determining damage and then forcing the visual around it is going to be bad. If it made the check the minute you made the shot, it wouldn't matter if you were leading dumbfire missiles and the enemy walks into them. The roll said you didn't hit. If you were streaking by in a recon mech and you pulled the trigger your missiles would have to shoot out of the back of your mech and clip through anything in the way because that's what the roll said.

Depending on how the game actually plays, we're really going to have to pay attention to how the game feels. A ridiculous amount of rolls are going to be deferred instead to player skill. All those to hit rolls that you have to make are going to hinge on how well a player can aim and compensate for anything they do to you aim as you fire (expanding reticle, that sort of thing). As much as I understand the history the series has, sticking to it like some sort of bible or whatever is a recipe for disaster. Yes, we have to pay attention to them, but you can't just translate it 1 to 1 in realtime.

It's like trying to carve marble with a paintbrush, it just doesn't work.

[Hylius]

"Does not translate well to video games" could mean numerous things depending on the spin you put on it. I could say that the packs of 5 missiles destroy the feel of the game/simulation, computers have more power than people crunching numbers (as Cake pointed out,) etc., and thus using missiles in packs of 5 does not translate well. I could then argue that intuitively, it makes sense for each missile to be its own unit it numerous ways: gameplay, "realism", etc.

Point I'm trying to make is don't read too much into that statement for nitty gritty stuff like this. While I'm sure they're sticking close to the tabletop rules for big stuff, I think you'll set yourself up for disappointment if you expect every aspect of the game to be just like a real-time tabletop with a computer calculating stuff for you.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

You know what I like about this forum. I like that the devs don't appear to read it much so I don't have to worry about all these awful threads ruining the game. Stop trying to hard translate CBT to a video game, it just doesn't work.

[Max Liao]

SJ SCP Wolf, on 15 November 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

You know what I like about this forum. I like that the devs don't appear to read it much so I don't have to worry about all these awful threads ruining the game. Stop trying to hard translate CBT to a video game, it just doesn't work.

And your example of this is where?

Wait for it ...

Oh, yeah! It's nowhere! Because, other than MegaMek (which isn't real time), no one has tried.

You BELIEVE it wouldn't work, but until it's tried you can't know it. I believe it CAN work, and believe the effort should be put into trying.

There are certain issues that would need to be resolved in changing from a turn-based tabletop game to a real-time action game (i.e. a good representation of targeting and random hit locations), but other than those issues I see nothing that can't port over.

[Cake Bandit]

So what? Don't bother making Mechwarrior Online? Or just make it a platform so we can all play the turn-based tabletop game with each other?

If you're going to make it a First-person, realtime action title you're going to have to deal with these problems. The developers have a vision, and they're going to stick to it, but generating ideas and thoughts about how to effectively deal with these situations can do nothing but good. This is going to take some thought, and it's going to take sacrifices in both the rules, and in what modern gaming conventions dictate. You can't do it just one way. We have a great opportunity in that there are heaps of lore and resources to work with, but it's just that. If you try to just stick it right in, it's not going to work.

At the same time, we can't just ignore everything that has been established prior or we're going to end up with another MechAssault. MW4 has been around for years and Mechwarrior Living Legends came around because there was a distinct demand for a particular game-feel. This universe is appealing, deep, and we need to sit up and pay attention to it. Sure, there's a dissonance between the mediums as we try to transfer, and that's when you listen to the gamers.

This is their artistic medium, they have the best chance of knowing what would translate well into the confines of a realtime combat simulator. They are the ones who know how to quickly and easily introduce complex game-constructs to players without demanding the player sit around and read a novel worth of rules. Gamers have been interacting with these concepts of play for decades, understand that there's a good many of them that have a lot of experience with games and know how to get **** done. They know what's going to be a comfortable level of depth for beginning players to be approached with and what will make people say "**** this, I didn't sign up to look at spreadsheets." (EVE Online anyone?)

When it comes to setting and how it should FEEL when you use it, you talk to the tabletop guys. These BattleTech Vets have lived and breathed this **** for YEARS. They know the politics of the setting inside out, they know how it's been described and dictated that things behave in such and such a manner by heart. You want to know how much armor a PPC is going to punch through? You look up a table top player. Got a question about sensor capabilities or what LAMS, BAP or ECM devices do? Hit up the Table Toppers. They know what's up, and they always will. Then you hand it off to the gamers and say "How do we make this work without ******* everything else up?"

Both sides have to engage in this give and take or we aren't going to end up with anything of value at the end of the day.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

Max Liao, on 15 November 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

And your example of this is where?

Wait for it ...

Oh, yeah! It's nowhere! Because, other than MegaMek (which isn't real time), no one has tried.

You BELIEVE it wouldn't work, but until it's tried you can't know it. I believe it CAN work, and believe the effort should be put into trying.

There are certain issues that would need to be resolved in changing from a turn-based tabletop game to a real-time action game (i.e. a good representation of targeting and random hit locations), but other than those issues I see nothing that can't port over.

My nephews believe that Santa is real. Doesn't mean that he is. You say no one tried? I counter with simply, people realized it can't be done and instead made games that would be successful, fun to play, and would make money. MWO should not try to be MegaMek 3D.

If you want to play CBT, go play CBT. It's right there probably sitting within a feet of you, or on you desktop. Heck stop by our website and we'll get a game going. Just stop trying turn MWO into it. Let's actually see some gameplay before telling them they are doing it wrong.

[Max Liao]

I didn't say they are doing it wrong, in fact I support their FAQ (as posted above) fully. I say that those advocating the desire to limit tabletop nuances from the action game is wrong. Essentially, making this a traditional MW FPS is wrong. There are already enough of those.

I fully understand that it cannot be the tabletop game 100%, but if they are going to err they need to err in that direction - NOT in the craptastic MechWarrior franchise direction.

Let's go in a direction that is both refreshing and true to canon and original game play. Let's give the game a true BattleTech feel, not a Rock'em Sock'em Robots Online feel. This can be accomplished by adhering (as strictly as possible) to canon. There's no other way, or the game isn't truly BattleTech/MechWarrior.

And I disagree with your counter ... SANTA IS REAL!

Seriously though, games cater to the lowest common denominator - money. This is why so many MMOs suck, because WoW sucks and everyone wants to be WoW. Unfortunately, when you make a meaningful game (i.e. Eve, or the original design plan for TOR) it caters to a niche crowd or people scream bloody murder. Typically those players want things easy, handed to them with little effort, and an I win button. I don't support that concept.

I believe that canon/lore trumps game play every time. Yes, a balance can be had ... I'm not against compromise, as long as it retains the proper feel. But to eschew the things that make BatteTech BattleTech (heat, crappy targeting computers, short ranges, randomness, pilot/gunnery skills, etc) go to far.