339 replies to this topic

[VYCanis]

except still, those machineguns are mounted on something that weights 20+ tons, recoil for something like that should be minuscule, and if the TC is doing that, it still wouldn't make sense. Mechs aren't shaking like leaves in a hurricane. They take strides. Their motions are large. Their bounces come at mostly steady intervals. If a TC trying to compensate by spraying bullets every which where, i'd much rather just tear out the TC.

To you it might be recreating the BTU, but to me, it just highlights the aspects of the BTU that don't make sense when you are actually the pilot. There are other better ways to spread damage if that's your concern.

It not a matter so much of getting used to it. anyone could get used to it. My point is that its visually jarring and I don't see arbitrarily missing as being a good gameplay factor. And Battle length, laser boats and game balance, are all things that can be dealt with in a myriad of other ways.


besides how does it make sense for recoil and motion to be such a big deal for an MG, but not its bigger cousin the ac2? under such a system as you propose, i might have an ac2 and an mg firing at the same time during a run, where the ac2 maintains reasonable accuracy due to its long range nature, but the mg is still has the accuracy of a pepper shaker due to its short range nature. heck, they might even be mounted in the same arm.

under an accuracy effector system, both weapons would be able to aim at the same area, the only dividing factor being the differences in ballistic performance and rate of fire complicating things.

Edited by VYCanis, 18 November 2011 - 12:13 AM.

[verybad]

mithril coyote, on 17 November 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

and there is the point that this game is set in the battletech universe, and The battletech universe dictates randomness. Cone of fire is pretty much the default in the setting.

No it doesn't. It even says in the rule books that the range and accuracy for the weapons in the Battletech game is much better, but it's reduced for the game.so it will actually fit on the table. I'm not looking to play Battletech, I'm looking to play Mechwarrior. (pp 36 Total Warfare Battletech) for starters.

I've no problem with heat, or other reasonable reasons to not be 100% accurate, but randomness isn't one of them. You're not rolling dice. That would ruin the game for most people that play it, even a large percentage of those that think they want randomness involved.

Edited by verybad, 18 November 2011 - 12:08 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 17 November 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

Oddly, it still works the same way for all the AC's no matter what the class. Imagine that. LBX series has an OPTION for cluster rounds but can still fire solid slugs, and if you take more than 1 ton of ammo you can mix and match to use as desired (solid slugs to open up armor, cluster to maximize your chance to get crits). The ability to chose between the two is one of the major advantages over regular AC's.

So, instead of using the fluff of the actual Canon cannon I mentioned, you would prefer that every single AC in the world act exactly the same way, completely removing the cool thing the devs could by making different weapons (for $2.99) actually act like the fluff says they do. Thanks for making our game less interesting.

Quote

Speed, distance, heat, damage taken... there's a lot more to it than you like to admit. It's too bad a system that allows you control over how well you shoot isn't involved enough for you. The option to still have everything you fire hit the same spot is still there, you just have work for it. But that would require skill, wouldn't it?

Man you just want to attack. You are sticking to unloaded guns. I fly high fidelity flight combat simulators. Where those things and a 100 other things like wind direction, ECM pods, beaming, AoA, Sun, clouds...all come into play. I want physics to do all those things. Not "cone of fire". That is what Pirahana will do, because that's what the Crysis engine can do. You stick to yer dice though.

Quote

Gee, I wonder what that recharge timer between shots means...

Yes recharge time. Who cares about reload time? That's a given for every weapon. I'm trying to help you with your laser panic, by adding additional skill through timing. You just go ahead and point and click though (but don't target anything, CoF will take care of that.) That'll be real hard. You're right though, in an age of portable reactors, having my ER Large charged to full 100% of the time probably wouldn't cause any heat issues.

Quote

One day I hope that I, too, can make up things about a subject I clearly don't understand and post it on the internet.

I got news, this is a Online game. You're going to need to try some computer games so that you can get comfortable with how this will play out. Also, stop being a bottom end. I'm not being ****** to you, just accurate.

Quote

You realize that if you don't go full throttle, aren't redlining the heat scale, and are in a good range for your weapons you hit what you're aiming at consistently under expanding reticule cone of fire too, right? You have full control over how big the circle gets-- and it becomes a much more involved system than "point-click-kill". You have to decide if you want to trade speed for accuracy, survivability for firepower.

That's a total given. I want the mech to jiggle. I want the weapons to actually jiggle on their actuators. We don't need to cheat with CoF physics. Its unnecessary. I'm sorry my friend but you cannot make "managing heat" and "speed" interesting enough to overcome the "Point and click" of Cone of fire "hope I hit!"

Quote

I want the game to reflect the game it was designed after-- to simulate Battletech. Why do you want to make it into call of duty- the mecha edition?

First of all, BattleTech is a universe. I want to simulate a BattleMech. The universe is you and me, but I guess we'll be on opposite sides. Secondly, its obvious that you don't play video games, because you would know that Call of Duty makes extensive use of your Cone of Fire. The FPS game I play, Arma 2, (built off a military sim for various RL Armies: VBS2) does not, it waggles the gun when you run and are trying to catch your breath. Same thing, different immersion and skill required.

I don't know what you are trying to win other than BattleTech rule book accurathon. Stop trying to put everything in the box, and start pulling stuff out. Actually think, beyond the CoD cone of fire, of cool interesting ways to do things, and what what would look and feel like in the game.


Lets say your left Arm actuator gets hit. That arm reticle now moves slower. So your TC compensates, and the left arm has its own targeting now, much slower, or stopped, depending on critcal damage and how fun it is. Hopefully, there is no random shots, because the left arm lags behind when you twist right. (Especially with a free targeting circle).

Is that one CoF or two?

Edited by Technoviking, 18 November 2011 - 12:42 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Webclaw, on 17 November 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

VYCan
I have to agree with VYCanis... His little picture comp highlights the "randomness" of simulation fire without involving a random number generator too often used on most games, COD etc.

Totally. The right picture, I can get better at, and learn things, and have the flesh behind the keyboard gain actual piloting skills.

The left picture can never be corrected, nothing can be learned. Only by slowing down can I become more accurate. I can never learn to be better, or improve the speed for which firing is easier. My only hope is that my speed to get in and out of cover is a mathematical equation that I can calculate on the fly and try to average my chance of hitting with my heat so that on average, I can win.

[VYCanis]

additionally, provided you make weapons different enough you don't need COF. to prevent the average mech's alpha strike from being OP, as most mechs have a diverse loadout.

if i have a ppc in one arm, an ac10 in the other, and an srm 6 in the torso, its not practical at all for me to fire them all at once at any range beyond freakin' close, even if my aim is pixel perfect, because all of these weapons would likely have different projectile qualities, and even if they did all hit, assuming both me and my target are moving, those shots will likely hit different areas as the ppc might hit first, the ac burst second, the srms third.

and for mechs that boat weapons together. who's to say that ACs can't accrue more recoil and spread the bigger they are and the more are fired simultaneously. Stands to reason a mech firing 1 ac20 will be more able to control it than a mech of the same weight firing two at the same time. Or have maybe weapons that are packed into 1 singular location generate more heat the more you have packed in there as they overtax the cooling system. So a mech trying to pack an arm with 8 med lasers not only has to deal with that large amount of heat, but bonus heat for packing those lasers in like sardines. Maybe having too many ammo dependent systems increases the odds of an ammo explosion or jam, considering your mech's insides will look like a conveyor belt convention, it'd need so many ammo feeds. Maybe mechs that run like fridges due to lots of HS, especially doubles, glow like crazy on IR due to all the heat they are dumping into the surrounding air, making them childsplay to spot on sensors whenever they are unloading heat. Maybe flamers and infernos ***** players over the more HS they have, as HS have to be close to the surface of the armor to transfer heat, and could easily be overtaxed by extreme external temps. i could go on.

and considering the TT never had to deal with recoil, projectile speeds, actual rates of fire, among other things, and had to abstract or gloss over lots of stuff that would have to be nailed down for a real time 3d game, you would naturally have to add in game play mechanics that may not necessarily exist in the TT.

It makes no sense to me to simply lump in all of those potential variables that can be explored in a real time game into a simple variable chance to hit, simply because the TT never had to deal with it, due to the constraints of its medium.

Edited by VYCanis, 18 November 2011 - 12:49 AM.

[Xenois Shalashaska]

Only want to post my opinion about the aiming issue.

The last 4 version of mechwarrior from 1-4 all had stiff static mechwarrior bodies. Consider the Atlas mech with mounted weapons on the arms. They should be animated in away that the mechs body parts can move freely raising its arms to fire or aim making a delay of retaliation in combat.(just my imagination & idea's) Accuracy could be a factor either by the mechs engine power/ heat of the weapon fired causing greater stress on servo joints. Maybe having dedicated targeting computers suited for certain mechs/ weapon groups like energy based weapons or ammo but speciallized accuracy to weapons like Mechcommander 1 & 2 had with the merceneries e,g like sensor specialist or SRM specialist.

The game needs to have a mechanical satisfaction of detail to individual customizable mechs. Make engine damage possibe, Heat Sinks can be damaged, weapons can Jam, Lasers malfunction, LRM go off trajectory & that mechs topple over from considerable fire or the terrain is on a slope ect that forces them to get back up under fire.

Targetting retna with a percentage of accuracy depending on speed, wind, mounted weapon position, terrain, mechs damage, special pilot attributes, recoil, distance, weapon velocity & stability. The computer chicks voice can voice probability of a hit.

Just idea's..... The cone field of fire is great, but also include many factors to make it a more simulated experience.

[CeeKay Boques]

yes, and that's a good point on heat. If my Dervish has SRM-2 ammo in the arms, and your inferno hits that arm, that arm gains heat. Now, that heat goes into the big "30" of speed reduction and (+1 if your legs are hot), But maybe there is a bonus to ammo cook off because it hit that arm. Maybe the other arm is at 0. We don't have to randomize heat cook off anymore either. When you look at your 'Mech display and you see your heat, it radiates on where it is most in the moving "circulation" type display on your dash (or hud depending on resolution and how much data is packed on there).. If you have LRMs launch, that part of your mech is now at 6k. The heat transfer flows to the rest of the chassis after that and dissipated through the heat sinks.

[diana]

I'll support VYCanis's idea.

[Xhaleon]

Uh, guys? Y'all forgot to mention that Canis' example of a Cone of Fire was exaggerated in order to create an extreme strawman.

A proper cone of fire would have you completely unable to recognize a spread from the muzzle, but it would have more than enough to prevent concentrated boating at any respectable distance, serving its intended purpose while allowing "called shots" as the players close the distance.

Making the size of the cone as large as it was presented,
- implying that it is the only size that they would come in,
- and then basing the argument that a cone of fire of that size is silly,
- when it was indeed drawn to be silly and overly large,
- is very dishonest.

That's enough paragraph-long sentences from me.

Oh, yeah, see what I mean when I said they just shout the loudest? Especially for the more overtly arrogant ones.

It also feels at times that those chipping in for them are newly created puppets. Anybody on the staff care to check IPs?

Edited by Xhaleon, 18 November 2011 - 03:55 AM.

[Melissia]

mithril coyote, on 17 November 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

in the mechwarrior games you point your guns, click fire, and poof, there goes your target. no tactics beyond "as many guns as my mech can hold, point at target"

Yeah, you probably weren't that good of a player then.

Rather than "cone of fire", I would prefer an individually (as in, per projectile) determined scatter. Lasers fire instantly and have excellent accuracy, but.... they should also have a longer recharge time compared to the time between shots on most (IE non-gauss) ballistic weapons. Except for pulse lasers, which require you to keep the laser on target for the pulsing energy to work best, so it requires more skill anyway.

As for "its just point and click", no matter what scatter/cone/recoil system you use, it's always going to come down to point and click. That's like complaining that the tabletop sucks because no matter what you do, it's still going to come down to a dice roll. Except at least the point and click is dependent somewhat on skill.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 04:29 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:

Yeah, you probably weren't that good of a player then.

Rather than "cone of fire", I would prefer an individually (as in, per projectile) determined scatter. Lasers fire instantly and have excellent accuracy, but.... they should also have a longer recharge time compared to the time between shots on most (IE non-gauss) ballistic weapons. Except for pulse lasers, which require you to keep the laser on target for the pulsing energy to work best, so it requires more skill anyway.

As for "its just point and click", no matter what scatter/cone/recoil system you use, it's always going to come down to point and click. That's like complaining that the tabletop sucks because no matter what you do, it's still going to come down to a dice roll. Except at least the point and click is dependent somewhat on skill.

This +1

[diana]

Xhaleon, on 18 November 2011 - 03:28 AM, said:

Uh, guys? Y'all forgot to mention that Canis' example of a Cone of Fire was exaggerated in order to create an extreme strawman.

A proper cone of fire would have you completely unable to recognize a spread from the muzzle, but it would have more than enough to prevent concentrated boating at any respectable distance, serving its intended purpose while allowing "called shots" as the players close the distance.

Making the size of the cone as large as it was presented,
- implying that it is the only size that they would come in,
- and then basing the argument that a cone of fire of that size is silly,
- when it was indeed drawn to be silly and overly large,
- is very dishonest.

That's enough paragraph-long sentences from me.

Oh, yeah, see what I mean when I said they just shout the loudest? Especially for the more overtly arrogant ones.

It also feels at times that those chipping in for them are newly created puppets. Anybody on the staff care to check IPs?

Preventing boating, i.e. alpha strikes? Is this your reason? I believe alpha strikes can be made less common through different means than adding random spread to weapons.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Barbaric Soul, on 17 November 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

It's nothing like that. I'll explain why us MW players don't want a cone of fire. To put it as simple as I can, when the game is released, and you and I are in a game, if you win, I want it to be because you played the better game, not because you got lucky with the random hit locations of your shots. Same thing if I win, I want it to be because I played the better game, not because I got lucky.

Its exactly like that. All the lore, and the TT points out that this the case. Battlemechs just do not target that accurately. Invariably the counter is a stawman that you're going to select a mech and press fire and the computer will randomly determine if you hit. I wonder if people have never played a modern fps?

[TheRulesLawyer]

VYCanis, on 17 November 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

here is a handy dandy diagram illustrating exactly why i do not like cone of fire, or taking the old rules verbatim without thought to context and gameplay

compare each one. CoF may seem like its "truer to the tabletop" but a system of stacking modifiers just to shrink or expand a random cone is bland as hell, and arcadey to boot. I'd much rather have what used to count as modifiers actually factor in as actual characteristics of the machines and the weapons and whats going on. I want to spend my game time struggling to get a shot through all the interference my enemy is sending my way, not spend the game where both sides are "GI Joe shooting" at hilariously short ranges because no one can reliably score a hit otherwise.

Cute pic, but even with the crosshairs wobbling all over the place you still have the problem of damage hitting the same location. You can make energy weapons a DOT, and give ammo weapons more shots that do less damage, but the trouble is all of that messes with the mechanics of some weapons being better simply because they do damage in large packets

Ultimately that doens't mean it wouldn't be a fun "mech" game but it ceases to be battletech and throws the BV system out the window along with how TRO mechs are balanced. Its a fine sort of sytem if you're building a mech sim from the ground up. Just thats not here.

[TheRulesLawyer]

VYCanis, on 17 November 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

you could do that, but up to what range is that going to be good for.

45% in the yellow might be fine and dandy at 200m, but what about 800?

is each different weapon going to get its own unique weighted probability circle?

because if so, that still has the potential of turning silly looking real fast... exhibit B

You clearly don't understand what a cone is, do you?

[Kudzu]

Quote

except still, those machineguns are mounted on something that weights 20+ tons, recoil for something like that should be minuscule, and if the TC is doing that, it still wouldn't make sense. Mechs aren't shaking like leaves in a hurricane. They take strides. Their motions are large. Their bounces come at mostly steady intervals. If a TC trying to compensate by spraying bullets every which where, i'd much rather just tear out the TC.

Got outside and take a run really quick. As you're running, notice that when all your weight comes down on one leg your torso bobs a bit as your body absorbs the impact. Now, imagine that you weighed 20-100 tons and were moving at 50kph+. Still think it's going to be a smooth ride?

Quote

To you it might be recreating the BTU, but to me, it just highlights the aspects of the BTU that don't make sense when you are actually the pilot. There are other better ways to spread damage if that's your concern.

It makes perfect sense within the setting. Do you watch Star Wars and complain about there being sound in space and that close range dogfights happen with laser weapons?

Quote

It not a matter so much of getting used to it. anyone could get used to it. My point is that its visually jarring and I don't see arbitrarily missing as being a good gameplay factor. And Battle length, laser boats and game balance, are all things that can be dealt with in a myriad of other ways.

And you lose a lot of the flavor that separates BT from the rest of the mecha genre.

Quote

besides how does it make sense for recoil and motion to be such a big deal for an MG, but not its bigger cousin the ac2? under such a system as you propose, i might have an ac2 and an mg firing at the same time during a run, where the ac2 maintains reasonable accuracy due to its long range nature, but the mg is still has the accuracy of a pepper shaker due to its short range nature. heck, they might even be mounted in the same arm.

If you were firing an AC/2 at it's max range while moving you'd see a similar effect. You're also leaving out the weight differences-- the AC/2's weight cost, reflecting better stabilizers, gives it much greater accuracy than the very light machine gun.

[Kudzu]

Quote

So, instead of using the fluff of the actual Canon cannon I mentioned, you would prefer that every single AC in the world act exactly the same way, completely removing the cool thing the devs could by making different weapons (for $2.99) actually act like the fluff says they do. Thanks for making our game less interesting.

Under a spreading fire scenario AC's performance would actually improve-- concentrated damage is powerful. Under your system the AC/20 loses out to the 4 medium laser combo, the AC/10 and 5 both lose out to the PPC and the large laser, but at least the AC/2 stays about the same... Choosing to fire the cluster rounds on an LB-10X is one thing-- you can use it when it is tactically advantageous-- but having all AC's turn into ghetto LB-X's all the time just pushes them further behind the rest of the weapon choices.

Quote

Man you just want to attack. You are sticking to unloaded guns. I fly high fidelity flight combat simulators. Where those things and a 100 other things like wind direction, ECM pods, beaming, AoA, Sun, clouds...all come into play. I want physics to do all those things. Not "cone of fire". That is what Pirahana will do, because that's what the Crysis engine can do. You stick to yer dice though.

I'm glad you like simulations that are realistic, I want to see that too, but realistic to the Battletech universe. But hey, when you come back to the board whining about how medium laser boats are instantly coring you, that lights and most mediums are completely useless, and that everyone is running around in the same three mech chassis's using the same load outs, remember this thread. We've already seen what happens when you don't have weapons spread and everyone is a super sniper at max speed, not doing something to fix those issues is just slapping a coat of paint on a car you got from a junkyard.

Quote

Yes recharge time. Who cares about reload time? That's a given for every weapon. I'm trying to help you with your laser panic, by adding additional skill through timing. You just go ahead and point and click though (but don't target anything, CoF will take care of that.) That'll be real hard. You're right though, in an age of portable reactors, having my ER Large charged to full 100% of the time probably wouldn't cause any heat issues.

You realize that that's what that bar is representing-- the capacitors recharching for the next shot. Yet you insist that "adding in lag shooting will fix everything!" In case you don't remember, MW2 and 3 already had that built in via poor net coding... and the same problems were still there.

Quote

I got news, this is a Online game. You're going to need to try some computer games so that you can get comfortable with how this will play out. Also, stop being a bottom end. I'm not being ****** to you, just accurate.

Really? An online game? Gee golly, I've never heard of that before! I guess I must be psychic if I haven't played other MW games online and already know what the issues were with the previous games!

Quote

That's a total given. I want the mech to jiggle. I want the weapons to actually jiggle on their actuators. We don't need to cheat with CoF physics. Its unnecessary. I'm sorry my friend but you cannot make "managing heat" and "speed" interesting enough to overcome the "Point and click" of Cone of fire "hope I hit!"

Yes, it's totally cheating to apply a concept that is core to both the original, and well balanced, game and 25+ years of lore. I'm glad you're completely involved with "point here and never miss".

Quote

First of all, BattleTech is a universe. I want to simulate a BattleMech. The universe is you and me, but I guess we'll be on opposite sides.

You mean a Battlemech that's from the Battletech universe, which is similar in some ways yet completely different in others from ours. Battlemechs fail to hold up in most ways when taken from their fictional universe and placed into ours.

Quote

I don't know what you are trying to win other than BattleTech rule book accurathon. Stop trying to put everything in the box, and start pulling stuff out.

I've seen what happens when you pull BT out-- you get games like MW4, Mech Assault, etc. I'd rather not see that failure recreated with prettier graphics.

Quote

Actually think, beyond the CoD cone of fire, of cool interesting ways to do things, and what what would look and feel like in the game.

I'd rather see BT recreated faithfully and stick to the lore that's been established. If I want mecha set in our universe and made realistic to our physics I'd play Hawken.

Quote

Rather than "cone of fire", I would prefer an individually (as in, per projectile) determined scatter. Lasers fire instantly and have excellent accuracy, but.... they should also have a longer recharge time compared to the time between shots on most (IE non-gauss) ballistic weapons. Except for pulse lasers, which require you to keep the laser on target for the pulsing energy to work best, so it requires more skill anyway.

Oh, so that guy in the laser boat has to wait a few extra seconds between one-shotting people. That fixes everything.

Quote

As for "its just point and click", no matter what scatter/cone/recoil system you use, it's always going to come down to point and click. That's like complaining that the tabletop sucks because no matter what you do, it's still going to come down to a dice roll. Except at least the point and click is dependent somewhat on skill.

Except for the part where the dice roll does have skill involved-- your actions change the target number you need to make with the roll. The skill is in making your target numbers low while your enemies target numbers are high.

[MaddMaxx]

Is it Wednesday yet? Did someone ask the Dev the question "what will MWO use in regards to a Weapons accuracy model? No? Yes? Please!

The whole Left vs Right argument is making me somewhat nauseated.

[Creel]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that anyone advocating 6 different weapons mounted in 6 different places with 6 different control systems calibrated by 6 different techs all hitting the same place every time as being "more realistic", has a pretty flaky grasp on reality.

Shots deviate. it is canon, it is life, it is physics.

There have been many discussions on why they deviate, including some fairly in depth technical discussions. With math and pictures, and stuff, even.

Personally, I want a center-weighted cone of fire, not in order to balance the gameplay (though it would help with that), but because it better reflects the world of battletech, and it better reflects a technically accurate physics model.

Honestly, I liked a good C1 fight as much as the next guy, but the games will be better with a model that would make that doctrine non-viable.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Oh, so that guy in the laser boat has to wait a few extra seconds between one-shotting people. That fixes everything.

Yes, actually. It means that while the laser weapons are more accurate, the ballistics weapons in this gameplay model do more damage because they produce less heat, have less time between shots, and therefor can be used more often even if they have equal damage to the energy weapons.

Meanwhile the energy weapons are excellent for pinpoint accuracy and longer battles, as you do not have to worry about ammunition reserves-- instead only worrying about the more immediate heat buildup concern. This is called balance. Each one has its pros and its cons. You may have heard of this balance thing, seeing as you probably believe (amusingly, really) that TT has it.

Laser boats are not really a problem-- I can think of plenty of 'mechs that are basically "laser boats" to some extent or other in the setting anyway (the Nova has 12 medium ER lasers for example; its inner-sphere variant, the Black Hawk-Ku, had 4 medium pulse, 6 medium, and 2 small lasers; even the basic Raven has two medium lasers, its only other weapon an SRM-6).

The devs just need to balance the stats out, and people will naturally begin choosing other setups that fit their playstyle best because they find their laser boat isn't working very well due to heat buildup, and they simply can't fit enough heat sinks on their chassis to meet the heat requirements of their 'mech with the number of lasers they want to put on it. And then there's those that will still make it work for them because they're excellent at cycling through their weapons and managing heat-- but that's okay, because others will make ballistics-heavy setups work for them too, and still others will favor missile-heavy setups, and still others will favor balanced setups. That's how it should be, up to each individual pilot how their 'mech is kitted out-- with the developers introducing balance tweaks based off of usage and power to make everything equally useful in its own way.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Except for the part where the dice roll does have skill involved-- your actions change the target number you need to make with the roll. The skill is in making your target numbers low while your enemies target numbers are high.

but still not as high as when actually aiming, as you can take however damn much time you want figuring those numbers out in a turn-based tabletop game, while in a real-time game, you have to think quickly.

I've played several tabletop games, from battletech to 40k and WFB to Hordes and Warmachine... they're really not difficult to pick up. In the end, the victory between two skilled players is quite frequently boiled down to luck in these kinds of games.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 11:11 AM.