55 replies to this topic

[Eradikitten]

My first sojourn into battletech was in 1986. I've played every official battletech and mechwarrior game, and several unofficial ones such as Neveron, Mektek and some of the Mu*s. I've seen some of the games come very very close to their potential, and others completely disregard the previous work with the intention of "improving" on it, and totally miss the mark.

In my experience, the games that had the best gameplay are those that stayed closest to the core material. Crescent Hawks' Inception didn't have problems dealing with excessive "alphas" or "pinpoint accuracy" or the like.

The games with the worst gameplay strayed the farthest. (Essentially anything with Microsoft on board.) There is a rich history of source material, why try to rewrite it?

Anyhow, first and foremost I would like to see MWO do something bold that would largely get rid of the discussions of "boating" or "pinpoint accuracy" or if Alpha Strikes should be allowed: The reticule isn't the impact point of the weapons, it is the mechwarrior's target designator. You target the enemy mech, and click fire, and the mech's onboard computers handle the weapons directly firing at that target. And each weapon rolls to hit off the 2d6 hit table.

Why? The tabletop game was balanced around the spread of fire. Without it, 4 MLs are just as useful as an AC20. With 11 heatsinks so you can continually fire them, they even weigh the same as the AC20, without the risk of ammo explosion, without having to deal with resupply, at the vastly lower cost, etc etc. Following the hit table, the AC20 is the only true Succession Wars headchopper weapon, and very useful. MPBT3025 was very good at demonstrating why going to the hit table is required: the Blackjacks were largely dominating the field due to the pinpoint accuracy on their AC-2s and the ability to remove someone's head from outside LRM range with it. Additionally, there is actually a piece of equipment that allows for that pinpoint accuracy: the targeting computer.

Secondly heat rules need to be strictly followed. This is another thing that reduces the effect of boating up a mech, and its associated absurd alpha strikes: if you run the risk of spontanious engine shut down, or even reactor core breach, you aren't going to do it often. Further, it makes flamers and Inferno SRMs useful.

Third, indirect LRM fire needs to be implimented. If one of your scout mechs can see the target, you should be able to volley some LRMs at it (If in range) This makes light scout mechs such as the Locust useful on the battlefield (Giving newbies that can't pilot anything else an essential battlefield role) and makes battlefield tactics more important than gladiator style one on one slugathons. If this game is really supposed to be about online teamwork, indirect fire is essential.

Fourth: Customizing your mech should be just as expensive as it is in the books, but access to official varients should be easy. This again reduces the chance of boating, but would also provide an in game money sink that very wealthy players would be able to use.

Finally: Terrain needs to be WIDELY varied. MPBT3025 had an issue with bland backgrounds, though this is forgivable as it was in beta. All the MW2 games did as well, though they were on very primative computers. World of Tanks (which too many people are comparing this to) really fails on this account.

I'll post some more later, but this Wall O Text is enough for now.

[Eradikitten]

Quote

-I want a more realistic mech sim than just about anyone.

Do you? Doesn't sound like it.

You don't want to be able to grab a Firestarter and force a couple of heavy/assault mechs to shut down because they ignored you, and you were able to overheat them? Good way to salvage minimally damaged mechs you know.

You don't want to be able to fire over the crest of a hill out of direct LOS of your enemies, negating any risk of engaging them? Or baiting an ambush when they charge at the ridge the missiles are cresting?

What you want is in no way shape or form "realistic" or "Balanced." I suspect if you actually played a good First Person implimentation of the tabletop rules you'd change your opinion of it. Better balance, more options, less steamrolling.

Oh, have you ever fired a gun RL? Do you know how many variables go into accurate long range marksmanship? I'm not talking just drop due to gravity here. . . All previous iterations of 1st person mechwarrior have vastly oversimplified targetting and the like to the point where nearly every weapon behaves like a perfectly accurate laser. It throws off the balance of the game and is TERRIBLY unrealistic.

[Semyon Drakon]

I agree completely. I would truly like to see a large amount of realism brought into the game. Mechwarriors who are complaining that 'tabletop' shouldn't be used as a basis are missing the point. The tabletop game was always the basis for all mechwarrior games, with possibly mech commander being the better representation in my opinion.

That said it needs to be workable. I think if you look at what the Devs are describing we will be seeing indirect fire from lancemates, scouting and ECM all starting to play a part. Certainly if the video from the original reboot project is anythign to go by then heat will definately play a part (watch the image of the hammy lighting up the Atlas with its PPC's and you'll see the image start to waver as the heat in the cockpit rises)

I for one want to see it as realistic as possible in the following areas.

Cockpit mechanics.
Piloting.
Weapons effects and targetting.
Terrain.

There's a lot more but I need to put on my flame proof undies.

Semyon

[Kagemusha]

The stories. I like playing the stories. The great MechWarriors who nail shot after shot, accurate as can be. Yes, the lasers spread, some shots are right on target, whereas others are quickly fired and the Warrior is happy if the shot even hits. I do not want to be joe shmow, who just fires shots, hoping they hit. I want to be deadly accurate.

Battletech TableTop is a strategy game. It is a fantastic game. However, you are not the pilot of these mechs. You do not get to feel the terrain, feel the way the other mech moves, and dances. It is slower, more methodical, turn based. It does not immerse you in a single mech, and the expeirence that one reads in the novels. The MechWarrior games, are about the MechWarrior, they are about the type of engagements found in the novels. They are about playing a part, whether it is Wolf, Jade Falcon, Ghost Bear, mercenary, Solaris combatant, or a part of a house.

We do not want to read that Justin Allard targeted the Uziel, and the lasers just rolled out peppering the mech in various places. No, we want to read that Justin Allard sized up the Uziel, moved to get his reticle zeroed in on the right torso, and then unleashed a barrage of lasers and missiles. The lasers quickly dug into the right torso, melting away the armor. The missiles found their way home, largely hitting the already damaged torso, with a few missing, and a few others finding their homeon the right arm and leg. The uziel pilot knew he was doomed.

[Kudzu]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

How in the Hell would you know what I want?

The only things I've stated about what I want is that (1) I don't want tabletop, and (2) I want more sim. Yet you automatically assume (incorrectly) that I want the opposite end of what you erroneously think is a binary slider between "tabletop" and "arcade."

In reality, it isn't a binary slider, regardless of whether or not I fall on an extreme. It's at least a trinary graph. I fall on the "sim" point, the average gamer falls on the "arcade" point, and you and all the other tabletoppers fall on the "abstract" point.

All three of them are mutually incompatible, but, for good or bad, it looks like the game is going to try to cater to all three by offering some sort of impossible middle ground. "A good compromise leaves everyone unhappy."

(And to think that I'd sworn I was done with forum arguments forever. Hah.)

Did you ever stop to think about what you wanted to be simming? If you buy a flight simulator you'd expect the planes to handle like planes, not motorcycles. If you buy a train simulator you'd expect the trains to handle like trains and not spaceships... so why is it that when you buy a battletech simulator you expect it to act like something that isn't battletech?

[Kudzu]

Kagemusha, on 15 November 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

The stories. I like playing the stories. The great MechWarriors who nail shot after shot, accurate as can be. Yes, the lasers spread, some shots are right on target, whereas others are quickly fired and the Warrior is happy if the shot even hits. I do not want to be joe shmow, who just fires shots, hoping they hit. I want to be deadly accurate.

Battletech TableTop is a strategy game. It is a fantastic game. However, you are not the pilot of these mechs. You do not get to feel the terrain, feel the way the other mech moves, and dances. It is slower, more methodical, turn based. It does not immerse you in a single mech, and the expeirence that one reads in the novels. The MechWarrior games, are about the MechWarrior, they are about the type of engagements found in the novels. They are about playing a part, whether it is Wolf, Jade Falcon, Ghost Bear, mercenary, Solaris combatant, or a part of a house.

We do not want to read that Justin Allard targeted the Uziel, and the lasers just rolled out peppering the mech in various places. No, we want to read that Justin Allard sized up the Uziel, moved to get his reticle zeroed in on the right torso, and then unleashed a barrage of lasers and missiles. The lasers quickly dug into the right torso, melting away the armor. The missiles found their way home, largely hitting the already damaged torso, with a few missing, and a few others finding their homeon the right arm and leg. The uziel pilot knew he was doomed.

Outside of bad fan fiction the great pilots missed and the shots spread, I have no idea what you've been reading.

[Kudzu]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

Where the Hell did you pick up the silly notion that I expect a battlemech simulator to act like something that isn't a battlemech? I thought I made it clear that I want them to act more like real battlemechs, not less?

What real battlemechs? Do you have an Atlas in your backyard? Do you live in an alternate sci-fi universe?
What we know about battletech comes from the games and the novels-- and it's in a universe similar to ours but with noticeable differences.

Quote

That's the second time that you dice rollers have ignored my statement and then tried to put the opposite statement in my mouth. Knock it off.

Stop saying silly things and we won't have to correct you as much.

[Brakkyn]

Touchy subject.

I, personally, believe MechWarrior should follow BattleTech rules--where applicable. The FAQ already stated, and I can't find anyone who can properly disagree, that some of the tabletop aspects of BattleTech do not translate well into a video game. That doesn't mean the things that DO translate should be ignored or left out.

[Kudzu]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

Okay, now I know you're deliberately being a ****. I already answered your question like two posts ago. Since you're trolling, you won't go back and read it, so for the benefit of the uneducated, here it is again: "what would piloting a battlemech be like if battlemechs were the kings of the battlefield?"

Read some of the sourcebooks and novels, play the tabletop, and get back to me on that. Battlemechs are the king of the battlefield in that fictional universe, and you'll get to learn all about them. Knowing that, if you want to play a simulation of what it's like to pilot a battlemech, you also have to enter that fictional world where things are different from ours.

What you've been going on about is like running up to Peter Jackson and saying "You know, Lord of the Rings was good as a book, but for the movies can we get rid of the Hobbits and magic and add guns to make it more realistic?"

Quote

In other words, I want a 100% realistic simulation of what piloting a battlemech would be like if battlemechs existed in the real world.

Then you don't want Battletech. Just about everything in it falls apart rather quickly once you try to apply it to our world.

Quote

That means real physics--something that no Mechwarrior game has come close to and the tabletop is even farther from.
So, if I were making the game, I would make a really good physics engine, and then put in the mechs, and adjust their equipment to balance the gameplay. So, if it turns out that mechs are too delicate with real-world physics, then I'd load them with lower-caliber weapons and lower-power lasers, and so on.

After how many changes, and there would be several, would you stop calling it Battletech and start calling it something else entirely?

Quote

That's the only way you could make it a sim. Arbitrary made-up rules which defy physics does not increase realism. You pen-and-paper folks are using "realism" as a buzzword which amounts to something of a bad joke.

False. It is certainly a sim-- a simulated experience of what it's like to be a battlemech pilot in the Battletech universe.

[Kudzu]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

Excellent deduction, my dear Watson. That's what I've been saying.

I want Mechwarrior, but more sim. The only things I value from the Battletech franchise are the fiction and the Western battlemechs. I don't care about the alternate universe physics rules and the silly wrestling/fencing/dancing giant robots.

However, the game is not going to cater to what I want. Nor is it going to cater to what you want. You need to realize that, and stop shoving the tabletop in everyone's faces. I've not been running around hollering what the game needs to be--I've only mentioned my (futile) hopes for it in this thread after being asked (or, more accurately, told) what I want.

Man, City of Heroes is a cool game, I really like the costumes but superpowers are so unrealistic... I'm going to go to their forums and tell them all about how they should use guns and knives instead.

Edited by Kudzu, 15 November 2011 - 03:39 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

This is my favorite subject! Having covered it 8 times already in different threads, I'm trying to come with a cool catch phrase, can you help?


Battletech Rule books are a fantastic resource to outline almost every single thing that can happen in Mech on Mech (and other) action. Physics should control those rules!

I can tell the OP hasn't read them, because if you had, you'd put your finger on your cheek and say "Uh-huh!", because basically its a list of anything that can happen between robots... in SPAAAAAAACEEEEEEE..... . I'm totally against dice rolling, I play flight, race and combat simulators. I think that that TW and TacOps and TROs are THE go-to place for Mech information. But I also recognize that some of my fellow TTers, dont' know what modern computer hardware is capable of. It can do it all. And it will be awesome.

[Amechwarrior]

J Echo, on 15 November 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

In other words, I want a 100% realistic simulation of what piloting a battlemech would be like if battlemechs existed in the real world. That means real physics--something that no Mechwarrior game has come close to and the tabletop is even farther from. Arbitrary made-up rules which defy physics does not increase realism. You pen-and-paper folks are using "realism" as a buzzword which amounts to something of a bad joke.

The problem is what is your frame of reference? You have none without the TT rules and abstractions in the fiction and fluff. If I wanted to simulate a M-1 Abrams, my frame of reference is the real M-1 Abrams. If I want to simulate piloting a Battlemech what is my frame of reference? Why am I judging one simulation model against another different simulation model if I do not know what the correct answer is?

I have already said too much on these boards and here is an analogy I posted before:

Amechwarrior, on 08 November 2011 - 05:31 AM, said:

Trying to definitively replicate a Battlemech cannot actually be done, you have no real thing to base it off of. But this does not mean I cannot try to simulate a fictional idea of one medium with another.

Lets say, I had a book, a fictional story with monsters, a hero, a prince that needs rescue and all that. It has always been a written work, but I am in charge of making a movie about it. I love this book, I want my movie to be like this book as much as possible. However, I have a different set of tools, the long, beautiful inner monologues in the book just do not translate well in a medium where the mantra is "Show, don't tell." I will have to change the work to fit the needs of cinema and my audience. I can do two things, one, I can say "Welp, this will not work in film, so lets just forget about it and I will make something up to take up the time, how about an action scene and some explosions. The audience loves seeing a great hero kick ****..." Or I could say "Welp, maybe I can take the ideas and emotional content of this monologue and show the hero preforming new acts that reinforce those ideals, or maybe have a bit of exposition by having him converse with a side kick. I can really show the audience why the hero is great" Which one of these courses of action will result in a better simulation of the original work?

If you would also choose the second course of action then we agree. Old ideas and concepts must be integrated into what the new medium works best with, but you do not throw out everything just because it does not fit. Like I said before, use the rulebook as a guide, not as a bible.

You are asking to throw out 20 years of established concepts for reality. "100% realistic simulation ...like if battlemechs existed in the real world" Well enjoy your 'mechs knees popping the first step your 80 ton warmachine puts all its weight on 1 leg and bends the knee. I do not intend to reply or discuss this more, I am personally burnt out and my analogy is rock solid. The table-top rules are the the most basal and direct frame of reference everything else inside the Battletech universe must judge itself against.

[Kagemusha]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

Outside of bad fan fiction the great pilots missed and the shots spread, I have no idea what you've been reading.

Absolutely they do. I didn't say differently. But the good pilots hit more, because they were good and knew how to target better. Sure a piloting/gunner rating can take this into consideration, but the characters missed because they missed their shot, not because of some innate randomness.

[Kudzu]

Most of us purists don't want them either-- but we do want systems in place that will still feel true to the setting. No one is saying "Oh, your mech jumped, add +3 modifer to shooting, roll the dice" we're saying "Oh your mech jumped, make the shots scatter more to represent how hard it is to pull that off in the BT universe."

Combat in BT is messy-- you miss, shots that do hit scatter all over a mech. Technology is super advanced in some places and far behind in others, this is what makes Battletech different from other settings. The pinpoint accuracy that is the root of so many complaints in the past games needs to be changed to be more in line with what Battletech really is. Managing heat needs to be a major point.

You want more realism and so do I, but I want it to be more realistic to the created universe, not ours.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

Most of us purists don't want them either-- but we do want systems in place that will still feel true to the setting. No one is saying "Oh, your mech jumped, add +3 modifer to shooting, roll the dice" we're saying "Oh your mech jumped, make the shots scatter more to represent how hard it is to pull that off in the BT universe."

Right, but rather than scatter the shots, shake the hell out of the mech, like the space shuttle taking off. Make the hud go wonky, and the torso start to list. Then, while all that is going on, if I make my shot, I rock! If I don't well, whattya expect? Everything was shaking, I was listing to the left My reticule was flying all over the place, I did the best I could!

But don't take the shot out of my hands and put it in the blender.

[Damocles]

Technoviking, on 15 November 2011 - 04:13 PM, said:

Right, but rather than scatter the shots, shake the hell out of the mech, like the space shuttle taking off. Make the hud go wonky, and the torso start to list.

I want all of that shaking, wonky HUD and movement to be the reason for the shot to scatter.
I loved every incarnation of MW and no matter what I will play this one, but I want something different this time. No more quakewarrior. No more alpha-strike win. I want lengthy battles and not 2-shot cores on my CT.

I do NOT want dice rolls. I do NOT want random. I want simulation of the Battletech universe in first-person.

/Damo

(and to be clear not all of this was directed at anyone in particular)

Edited by Damocles, 15 November 2011 - 04:21 PM.

[Seth]

I really don't think you want more realism. That's been covered in other threads and the gist of it is, MechWarrior and its attendant technology is largely obsolete. I see your Flashman with its 650m range lasers and raise you an Apache with missiles, rockets, 30MM cannon, and oh a more accurate targeting system. That's realism. I think what you want is better immersion, as in simulating the spirit of BattleTech. I'm a fan of making the game more sim-like, but I certainly don't press fire and see two dice roll across my screen. I want to see my weapons affected by more than just if I have a line of sight or not. The OP certainly laid out some of the best balancing aspects of the table top game and how those same balances could be translated into MWO. Not a single one of those suggestions was along the lines adopting movement/attack phases or dice rolling.

[trycksh0t]

Kagemusha, on 15 November 2011 - 04:04 PM, said:

Absolutely they do. I didn't say differently. But the good pilots hit more, because they were good and knew how to target better. Sure a piloting/gunner rating can take this into consideration, but the characters missed because they missed their shot, not because of some innate randomness.

Actually, most misses in BattleTech are the result of some innate randomness, in the Targeting and Tracking computers of their 'Mechs, the things that REALLY take the shot. I'm reminded of a line from Star Wars: "If you shoot it, the computer can hit it." This is what happens in a 'Mech fight - Pilot targets enemy, targeting and tracking computer attempts to lock said enemy, pilot pulls triggers, T&T system launches weapons in attempt to hit target designated by pilot. Some T&T systems are better than others, but none of them in the BattleTech universe are perfect.

[CeeKay Boques]

Laser beams as weapons don't exist. Everyone clear? Sweet. Now if they DID exist, how would they behave? That's what we're contemplating here. How would they, realistically behave, if they existed? We could even use math for fun. How would the tooth fairy conduct her teeth extractions if she did in fact exist? (apologies to our younger posters)

[Tweaks]

Jeez Leweez... what a funny thread that was to read. You guys owe me a new pair of pants cause I laughed too much!

On a serious note, he's my 2 cents on the topic, for what it's worth...

When I think about what defines reality or what is considered realism, I always end up with the same basic notion: reality is nothing without boundaries or clear indicators that tell your brain that something is real. In the real world, reality or realism represents what is actual, tangible and real, as opposed to abstract or speculative.

Since the world of BattleTech is science-fiction, we therefore can't use the boundaries of our own reality to define what should be considered reality in that world. The only source we can use to define those boundaries are the BattleTech novels, the tabletop game's technical manuals, rules and other canon documents. It may be science-fiction, but it doesn't mean that every laws of physics as we know them today are to be respected, even though I think BattleTech does a good job at respecting the basic rules (to some extent at least).

This said, nobody really knows what it "feels" like to pilot a 'Mech for nobody actually piloted one in our reality. They don't exist in our world. Some of you may think you know what it feels like because you've played one or more of the different games that tried to emulate it, but nobody really knows, with 100% certainty, if they (devs of those games) were actually close or not to getting it right. It's all a matter of interpretation after all.

So... What that means in my opinion, is that MWO does not have to feel even close to any other MechWarrior games, but it should, as much as it is possible with modern computer graphics and physics engines, try to emulate how it would probably feel like according to the novels, lore and official canon documents. I personally think the previous Mechwarrior games failed at that task, and really hope PG gets it done better.

PG already stated they intent to follow the tabletop rules as much as possible where it's applicable and that this won't be just another MechWarrior game. They want to create something different and refreshing, and I really hope they do!

Edited by Tweaks, 15 November 2011 - 05:29 PM.