437 replies to this topic

[CaveMan]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

I just want a interpretation of the rules that disallows such abuses, and makes the game fun for people that don't either want to exploit the perfect build, or just are too new to the game to know what the perfect build is.

There shouldn't BE a perfect build if the game is balanced right. Unless you're deliberately trying to make a failure, every 'Mech configuration should be valid. Hell, even a super-slow 'Mech filled to the brim with vehicle flamers could be brutal under the right circumstances.

[Melissia]

But why not have customization and focused balance patches instead?

It's not like everything at the beginning of the game is going to have the exact same stats a few months in, nor SHOULD it if they're going to patch biweekly. So really, it's just a matter of removing unbalance through altering stats rather than removing unbalance through making the game suck (IE removing customization).

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

But why not have customization and focused balance patches instead?

It's not like everything at the beginning of the game is going to have the exact same stats a few months in, nor SHOULD it if they're going to patch biweekly. So really, it's just a matter of removing unbalance through altering stats rather than removing unbalance through making the game suck (IE removing customization).

Why bother to use the IP if you aren't going to utilize anything but the looks of the mechs? Especially since you can take quite a bit of it from a game that is already fairly well-balanced to begin with...

[Halfinax]

CaveMan, on 18 November 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

There shouldn't BE a perfect build if the game is balanced right. Unless you're deliberately trying to make a failure, every 'Mech configuration should be valid. Hell, even a super-slow 'Mech filled to the brim with vehicle flamers could be brutal under the right circumstances.

This is why I advocate the use of a FPS/Simulation interpretation of the Battle Value system. It has nearly a decade and a half of adjustment to make it more balanced in the Table Top rules, and can be further tweaked to fit within the confines of a game where the player has direct control of an individual 'Mech. Even with customization (even though I disagree with the concept there in) the devs can create a game that is balanced, or appropriately imbalanced if the situation calls for it.

Edited by Halfinax, 18 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

Why bother to use the IP if you aren't going to utilize anything but the looks of the mechs? Especially since you can take quite a bit of it from a game that is already fairly well-balanced to begin with...

The tabletop rules are balanced (well... kind of... most of the time... if you ban certain things... and other caveats) for a turn-based game. Not for a real-time game.

One can take inspiration from them without directly copying them. And that is EXACTLY what they should do.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 08:59 PM.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

The tabletop rules are balanced (well... kind of... most of the time... if you ban certain things... and other caveats) for a turn-based game. Not for a real-time game.

And you proof is?

Quote

One can take inspiration from them without directly copying them. And that is EXACTLY what they should do.

Then perhaps they need to remove the phrase "We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules" from the FAQ.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

Then perhaps they need to remove the phrase "We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules" from the FAQ.

Or perhaps you could actually read what they wrote instead.

Quote

[PAUL] [...] There’s been a common misconception amongst the community that I’d like to clear up. While MechWarrior® Online™ does refer to BattleTech® for historical and canon reference, it does not mean that it’s a direct port of the table top rules to a videogame. The table top rules are laid out to make sense for a turn based strategy game. Some of those rules just don’t apply when dealing with a real time game environment. Core rules such as munitions accuracy, heat management and movement speed will have to be tuned for real time gameplay and will differ in varying degrees from the table top rules. How far they differ will come out of gameplay testing and tuning and at this point I cannot comment further on how that progress is going. It is an exciting time in the studio right now and I don’t want to release information too soon and have it change on you, the community, later. I am quite vulnerable to pitchforks and torches.

[DAVID] While there hasn’t been anything that I would call a great difficulty, the thing that we always have to keep in mind is that we want to capture all of the flavour of the tabletop game but need to be aware of when a direct translation of a tabletop system won’t work for a real time computer game. Though I would say that the biggest impasse we’ve come across is melee combat; that’s a system we don’t want to tackle until we know we can do it right.

Emphasis mine.

Tabletop rules work (most of the time) for the tabletop turn-based strategy game. But they're abstracted, and won't work very well for a real-time game.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[Halfinax]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

Or perhaps you could actually read what they wrote instead.


Emphasis mine.

Tabletop rules work (most of the time) for the tabletop turn-based strategy game. But they're abstracted, and won't work very well for a real-time game.

You two seem to be arguing two sides of the same coin. Both of you are suggesting that the rules of the TT should be adhered to where applicable and abstracted where necessary.

This seems to be a common problem throughout many of these discussions on these forums.

[Riptor]

Quote

Tabletop rules work (most of the time) for the tabletop turn-based strategy game. But they're abstracted, and won't work very well for a real-time game.

But in this case the problem does not stem from being unable to translate TT rules to Real time sim rules.

Its an entirely PC game only problem caused by sloppy or dare i say uncaring devs creating a single player game.

In all honesty whos going to complain about pinpoint accuracy in an PvE game? The mechwarrior games where never made with multyplayer as the focus despite the players using it mostly for just that.

All balancing done in the PC games was made vs the AI not against other players.

No one is demanding that you have to roll 2d6 while playing the game to see where the shots land... but there has to be something done against one shot wonders so the game stays interesting and varied.

After all its not only the TT rules that state that a mech doesnt have pinpoint accuracy... also this is one of the rare occasions where i say that the fluff does not get into the way of gameplay.

In canon the Computer simply trys to get all weapons available to lock onto the target and gives the pilot a sign when it achieved this. However what it doesnt do is converge all weapons on the same spot nor does it tell the pilot beforehand where the shots will land.

Locking onto a target and precise aiming are not the same things. As stupid as it sounds but youre not really taking so much aim as you are giving your computer a target he has to aim at. And all he will do is try to get all weapons pointed at the target.. but where exactly on the target is out of the mech pilots control.

Edited by Riptor, 18 November 2011 - 09:40 PM.

[Melissia]

Riptor, on 18 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

In all honesty whos going to complain about pinpoint accuracy in an PvE game?

And in any other forum, the typical response would be "who's going to complain about pinpoint accuracy in a pvp game?" with the suggested answer of "mostly the people who aren't very good at it to begin with".

There's plenty that can be done to limit alpha strikes, and it doesn't have to even touch accuracy at all. Heat, rate of fire, and damage can all be adjusted singly or in unison to punish people for using alpha strikes.

In canon, most 'mechs don't have targeting computers (at least, not targeting computers that actually help much). They're lostech or advanced clan tech, and for most 'mechwarriors, they're aiming un-aided.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 09:47 PM.

[guardiandashi]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:

And in any other forum, the typical response would be "who's going to complain about pinpoint accuracy in a pvp game?" with the
In canon, most 'mechs don't have targeting computers. They're lostech or advanced clan tech.

absolutely WRONG in canon EVERY single mech, vechicle, aerospace fighter, battlearmor suit, protomech, etc has a targeting computer its listed in the "fluff stats"

example Rifleman Targeting and tracking computer: Garret D2J
Phoenix hawk targeting and tracking computer: Tek Tru Track
Marauder targeting and tracking computer: Dalban High Rez
Clint, Targeting and tracking computer: Slone 220 Lockover

what mechs did NOT have was the Clan ADVANCED Targeting computer that actually has a Mass tied to the weight of direct fire weapons mounted on the unit.

[Riptor]

Quote

And in any other forum, the typical response would be "who's going to complain about pinpoint accuracy in a pvp game?" with the suggested answer of "mostly the people who aren't very good at it to begin with"

Oooooh.. i get it.. thats why all those "Skill" based shooters including Counter strike have weapon spread (eg. cones of fire)

Yeah that makes sense... (yeah yeah.. im thick on the sarcasm today..sue me )

Quote

In canon, most 'mechs don't have targeting computers (at least, not targeting computers that actually help much). They're lostech or advanced clan tech, and for most 'mechwarriors, they're aiming un-aided.

You havent really read that many books about the BT universe have you? Its the PC games that have done it wrong from the very beginning not vice versa. I have lots of books where the mechwarrior has to wait for his computer to focus the mechs weapons on the target before signaling the pilot that it is ready to fire. And frankly this game is still based on the Battletech universe no?

Edited by Riptor, 18 November 2011 - 09:56 PM.

[Melissia]

As I said-- computers which don't actually help very much. The skill of a pilot's aim is far more important than this targeting computer. Even the advanced targeting computer really only assists the pilot in leading his/her target, it doesn't aim for him/her.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 09:55 PM.

[Halfinax]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:

And in any other forum, the typical response would be "who's going to complain about pinpoint accuracy in a pvp game?" with the suggested answer of "mostly the people who aren't very good at it to begin with".

There's plenty that can be done to limit alpha strikes, and it doesn't have to even touch accuracy at all. Heat, rate of fire, and damage can all be adjusted singly or in unison to punish people for using alpha strikes.

In canon, most 'mechs don't have targeting computers (at least, not targeting computers that actually help much). They're lostech or advanced clan tech, and for most 'mechwarriors, they're aiming un-aided.

Your argument here is more against your point than for it. If targeting is unaided then cone of fire makes more sense than pin point accuracy.

I think the issue here is more that people have a misconstrued view of what cone of fire means. What the cone of fire people are arguing isn't some standing still deviation of 30+ percent of what is targeted, but closer to a 2-5% deviation off of what you are aiming at regardless of range. Not some giant ever expanding cone, but it will hit within the realm of a reticule that is only a few percentage points wider than the singular dot at the center of the reticule. Your shots will hit within the circle around the singular point in the center of your reticule, and not expand beyond that circle.

[Melissia]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

Your argument here is more against your point than for it. If targeting is unaided then cone of fire makes more sense than pin point accuracy.

No it doesn't.

Though I did like the idea that it takes a few moments for the weapons to align on a target at differing ranges (I would give credit for this idea, but I can't recall who posted it), such as if you are aiming down a road and your weapons are aligned to fire at max range, but then a 'mech walks around a corner at half of your max range, and your weapons have to adjust themselves for this new range-- until they did, they'd be slightly off target. This would also benefit light 'mechs a lot, as they could move close up or far away fast enough to throw off aim depending on the speed of the adjustment, making hitting them more of a challenge and thus making light 'mechs more useful than in the previous mechwarrior games.

But if a 'mech is perfectly still, firing at a target taht is also perfectly still, pinpoint accuracy makes sense.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 10:03 PM.

[Riptor]

Quote

As I said-- computers which don't actually help very much. The skill of a pilot's aim is far more important than this targeting computer. Even the advanced targeting computer really only assists the pilot in leading his/her target, it doesn't aim for him/her

But the pilot is NOT the one doing the targeting!

Its not like in a tank where you sit next to the main cannon looking through a scope... youre sitting in a cockpit and all your weapons are spread all over a roughly humanoid or insectoid shaped giant made out of metal.

In order to "manualy aim" each weapon would need its own scope that the pilot has to look through and manualy adjust said weapon to hit his target. That is a) absolutely not what you want from a multy weapons platform and impossible in a fight with highly mobile targets where those that stand still are killed.

Remember mechs are piloted by one person only. Theres a reason most Helicopters for example have a pilot and a gunner because one person cannot do both things at the same time.

If a pilot would have to aim his guns manualy without any help from his computer all we would have is moving gun towers that have to stand still every time they want to shoot.

Edited by Riptor, 18 November 2011 - 10:07 PM.

[Halfinax]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

No it doesn't.

Though I did like the idea that it takes a few moments for the weapons to align on a target at differing ranges (I would give credit for this idea, but I can't recall who posted it), such as if you are aiming down a road and your weapons are aligned to fire at max range, but then a 'mech walks around a corner at half of your max range, and your weapons have to adjust themselves for this new range-- until they did, they'd be slightly off target. This would also benefit light 'mechs a lot, as they could move close up or far away fast enough to throw off aim depending on the speed of the adjustment, making hitting them more of a challenge and thus making light 'mechs more useful than in the previous mechwarrior games.

But if a 'mech is perfectly still, firing at a target taht is also perfectly still, pinpoint accuracy makes sense.

You don't seem to understand your own argument here. On the one hand you suggest that pin point accuracy is the way to go, and then in the same breath you suggest a cone of fire. I'm not even sure what your stance is. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. You directly contradict yourself repeatedly.

[Lasercat]

Riptor, on 18 November 2011 - 09:54 PM, said:

Oooooh.. i get it.. thats why all those "Skill" based shooters including Counter strike have weapon spread (eg. cones of fire)

Not sure if that's quite what you're thinking though. Counter strike does not have random cof, which is what people bring up in these huge crazy threads.

[Riptor]

Each weapon in counterstrike has a certain bullet spread. Atleast the automatic ones. But try firing a sniper rifle on the move and youll see that its not really pinpoint either.

It may not have a crosshair showing that but the bullets do spread in a cone. And the bullets land randomly in that cone so yes it does have CoF it just doesnt smack you in the face with it.

Really its the same effect.

[Frantic Pryde]

I think heat, recycle time, weapon damage etc. Need to be left alone. These are things that translate very well from the TT game and just lead to trouble when messed with (mw4).

I don't like the cone of fire, pinpoint is fine except for the fact that a hunchback 4P is going to be able to 1 shot roughly 90% of the mechs in the game when all those guns are linked which is just beyond silly.

I really like the idea that some one mentioned about weapons taking time to align and basically "lock on" for pinpoint accuracy. You can do a lot of cool stuff with that. Maybe make it take a longer time the more weapons you have linked up for something...so that 4p could pull off that epic one shot kill but it would be close to impossible to track the target long enough to get every med laser fixed on the point.

Just to clarify, you could still fire before the weapon locked, but then you would have a cone of fire type effect.