339 replies to this topic

[GreenHell]

I like how OP quotes a "novel" for his "data".

Since when do novels written by people other than the game creators equal canon?

I don't care how many books he wrote, writers embellish and over-exaggerate EVERYTHING!

/thread

[Kudzu]

GreenHell, on 19 November 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

I like how OP quotes a "novel" for his "data".

Since when do novels written by people other than the game creators equal canon?

I don't care how many books he wrote, writers embellish and over-exaggerate EVERYTHING!

/thread

Stackpole is rather important to the canon-- he even has a rule named after him.

Oh, quick edit:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

The novels are canon.

Edited by Kudzu, 19 November 2011 - 09:29 PM.

[Outlaw]

I will say this, i don't mind if its easy to actually hit the target, however i would like to see some variation on where you hit, that is both impacted by the speed you are moving and the range you are at.

As to why it is best suited, is the fact that with the ability to mod mechs, it becomes an alpha boat fest that relies on who has the best alpha damage in a fight as opposed to who has the best tactics.

Edited by Outlaw, 19 November 2011 - 09:33 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

I don't think I'll ever be able to resolve the fact that we all want "variation on where we hit". But some people want the computer to do it magically where you can't see it, and others of us want to see it, and have two moving mechs bouncing at high speed just happen to have variation because they are bouncing at high speed and that effects physics, and in some ways try to counter act it, as opposed to being totally powerless like a I'm playing Mechcommander. Yet I feel that if I don't speak out at every turn of the "Variation through Randomness" that the Devs will do it. And that will be a sad day. I've gone over it enough, though, many have. Hopefully the well drawn out simulations for why physics rocks as opposed to the "variation for the sake of it, I don't know how to make it work, just do it with a cone or something" will ring true in the Dev's ears.

[GreenHell]

Kudzu, on 19 November 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Stackpole is rather important to the canon-- he even has a rule named after him.

Oh, quick edit:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

The novels are canon.

He still has to write an exciting book if he wants to sell copies. If it was all canon data it would be boring.
And really? You're gonna quote the "Stackpole effect" and use it to help your argument?
The stackpole effect is the most non-canon thing EVER! Every single mech goes nuclear?!?!?! What the **** is his deal?
He must really like explosions.........

[Red Beard]

GreenHell, on 19 November 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

He still has to write an exciting book if he wants to sell copies. If it was all canon data it would be boring.
And really? You're gonna quote the "Stackpole effect" and use it to help your argument?
The stackpole effect is the most non-canon thing EVER! Every single mech goes nuclear?!?!?! What the **** is his deal?
He must really like explosions.........

If those of you so bent on the games following canon are okay with a novelist creating canon material, then why could this new game not have the same effect? Can the devs not create some new things for us to enjoy in this game? I would be great with it.

[Kudzu]

GreenHell, on 19 November 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

He still has to write an exciting book if he wants to sell copies. If it was all canon data it would be boring.

I agree on both points, but they have little to do with the topic at hand.

Quote

And really? You're gonna quote the "Stackpole effect" and use it to help your argument?

It's in the rules (optional though they may be), so yeah, having something an author wrote make it into the game isn't as outlandish of a scenario as you make it out to be.

Quote

The stackpole effect is the most non-canon thing EVER!

False, as the link I've provided proved earlier. If it was non-canon it wouldn't be in the novels or the rules.

Quote

Every single mech goes nuclear?!?!?!

False. Under the rules and even in the novels it's not all that common.

Quote

What the **** is his deal?
He must really like explosions.........

I've secretly suspected that he and Michael Bay are the same person.

[Kudzu]

Red Beard, on 19 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

If those of you so bent on the games following canon are okay with a novelist creating canon material, then why could this new game not have the same effect? Can the devs not create some new things for us to enjoy in this game? I would be great with it.

Read the link, do you see video games listed under sources for canon material? And I seem to recall the last few times the video games "made something up" turned out rather poorly for both BT fans and video gamers.

[GreenHell]

Red Beard, on 19 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

If those of you so bent on the games following canon are okay with a novelist creating canon material, then why could this new game not have the same effect? Can the devs not create some new things for us to enjoy in this game? I would be great with it.

I'm not saying the devs can't make whatever they want. (because they will anyways lol)

I'm saying that you shouldn't use novelists/novels as your data points.
They embellish and exaggerate too much.

By all means, the devs should and will be doing whatever the hell they want.
I just don't trust novelists/novels to be accurate enough to quote as fact.

[Hodo]

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.

The right hand column is the one I suggested in another thread. It makes the most sense seeing as you are moving around in a inharently unstable 15-17m (45-55ft) tall machine. And dont argue that they are as stable as a tank, because that is Bull Sh&t. A great description of man moving, "walking is a cascade of the human skeleton constantly falling forward."

So I am all for AIM EFFECTORS. But not COF.

[Hodo]

Found the post where I said something about Aim effected aiming.

But in the wonderful world of Battletech the Table top game. The random hit tables was to prevent people from just aiming and shooting heads off everything. But if you played the MPBT games by either Kesmai or EA, you will find there was a way to introduce some of the error of aiming into a game. You wouldnt have some magic cone of fire, you would have your standard reticule, and as long as you were standing still, and you were aiming at a target 30m away (assumed zeroing range of the guns, if you dont know what that means Google it), your shots would go to the exact center of your targeting reticule. But if you were moving, your reticule will move around slightly at a walking pace, because your mech is bouncing around as you walk. Even in real life when you are doing room to room clearing with a M4 you still have a bit of weapon sway due to movement of your body. The faster your mech goes the more your reticule will move around.

As you get hit it will move depending on the size of the hit. Its pretty obvious if a machine gun hits you, its not going to move the mech much, but if a AC20 hits you, thats a pretty big hit, so you can be damned skippy your gun sight is going to move.

This will make snipe aiming at parts extremely difficult.

They should also remove "zoom" fire modes. You should be able to zoom, but not be able to fire while zoomed in. This will make shooting at a distance difficult and sniping at a distance near impossible at best.

Edited by Hodo, 19 November 2011 - 11:41 PM.

[Dsi1]

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.

I love you for this chart. Too big so I'll just have to link it in my sig I guess...

[Kudzu]

Hodo, on 19 November 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

The right hand column is the one I suggested in another thread. It makes the most sense seeing as you are moving around in a inharently unstable 15-17m (45-55ft) tall machine. And dont argue that they are as stable as a tank, because that is Bull Sh&t. A great description of man moving, "walking is a cascade of the human skeleton constantly falling forward."

So I am all for AIM EFFECTORS. But not COF.

And what would you do about all the shots always hitting the same spot under the crosshairs? Aim Effector has a similar effect as CoF as far as causing misses, but it does nothing about the "fire 8 medium lasers to do 40 damage at the same spot" when you do hit.

[Kudzu]

Also, fixed a few mistakes in the comparison.

[Dsi1]

You're joking, right? Luck based combat works in TT because you aren't playing as a single person from an FPS perspective, you're overhead and omniscient, controlling everything your side does. Luck based combat falls flat on its face in an FPS environment, where simulation based combat reigns as much more skill-based (and I don't mean "twitch") and much less frustrating (and I do mean aiming at the left arm and having the shell fly off to the right... of a still target, like in luck based combat) than luck based combat.

Edited by Dsi1, 20 November 2011 - 12:30 AM.

[Kudzu]

Dsi1, on 20 November 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

You're joking, right? Luck based combat works in TT because you aren't playing as a single person from an FPS perspective, you're overhead and omniscient, controlling everything your side does. Luck based combat falls flat on its face in an FPS environment, where simulation based combat reigns as much more skill-based (and I don't mean "twitch") and much less frustrating (and I do mean aiming at the left arm and having the shell fly off to the right... of a still target, like in luck based combat) than luck based combat.

Great point, or at least it would be if we were taking about an entirely luck based system. Fortunately, we aren't. You want to hit the left arm? Use your skill to get in and have the cone only covering it.

[Dsi1]

Kudzu, on 20 November 2011 - 12:33 AM, said:

Great point, or at least it would be if we were taking about an entirely luck based system. Fortunately, we aren't. You want to hit the left arm? Use your skill to get in and have the cone only covering it.

So you want me to run head first into the enemy to make sure my shell will hit it?

Ok then... (no really, what is up with people wanting luck over skill?)

[Kudzu]

Dsi1, on 20 November 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:

So you want me to run head first into the enemy to make sure my shell will hit it?

Ok then... (no really, what is up with people wanting luck over skill?)

Exaggerate much?

Ok then... (No really, what is up with people misusing the words luck and skill?)

[Lasercat]

Kudzu, on 20 November 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

And what would you do about all the shots always hitting the same spot under the crosshairs? Aim Effector has a similar effect as CoF as far as causing misses, but it does nothing about the "fire 8 medium lasers to do 40 damage at the same spot" when you do hit.

I'd point out there isn't any way to know how x weapon performs in the game until it's released, but on the assumption that what you said is true, this thread can answer your question.

[Dsi1]

Kudzu, on 20 November 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

Exaggerate much?

Ok then... (No really, what is up with people misusing the words luck and skill?)

Hoping that a random number generator decides in your favor might as well be hoping you're lucky.

Hardly an exaggeration, even with weighting you're still going to get frustrating fringe cases with luck based CoF. It might be rare, but crazy frustrating "WHY DID THE DEVS MAKE IT LIKE THAT" crap will never happen with properly (half decently even really, though properly please devs ) simulated combat.

Oh, as for lasers able to do pinpoint damage: change the zeroing from being perfectly at the distance the crosshair is at all the time, make the arms have to re-orient over a (very) short period of time as the crosshair changes distances. So if your lasers start on a mech 100m away, fall off of it onto a building 300m away for a split second, suddenly your arms are moving outwards to hit that, and when you get back on target you aren't hitting the same areas. Also, making the hitboxes more complex (Upper and lower torsos?) would do a lot as well.

(Same goes for cannons as well, lasers are just a much more visible comparison)

Edited by Dsi1, 20 November 2011 - 12:52 AM.