281 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I just posted a customised "Hunchback" based on TT rules for close quarter urban combat. Hunchback does 33 damage until your 5 shots are used then does 13. It is also at risk of damage due to ammo explosions. As it works at close quarters and is slow it doesn't have a chance to run away. Plus ballistics need some skill to use wheras lasers are hitscan
Swayback Mk 2

Mass: 50 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Succession Wars
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-F-D
Production Year: 3049
Cost: 3,712,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,258

Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 200 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
10 Medium Lasers
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard 83 points 5.00
Engine: Fusion Engine 200 8.50
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Double Heat Sink 15(30) 5.00
Heat Sink Locations: 2 LT, 2 RT, 2 LA, 1 RA
Gyro: Standard 2.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA+H R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor: Ferro-Fibrous AV - 169 9.50
Armor Locations: 1 HD, 2 CT, 2 LA, 5 RA, 2 LL, 2 RL

Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 16 24
Center Torso (rear) 8
L/R Torso 12 18
L/R Torso (rear) 6
L/R Arm 8 16
L/R Leg 12 24

================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Medium Lasers RT 15 5 5.00
5 Medium Lasers LT 15 5 5.00
Free Critical Slots: 2

BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 6 Points: 13
4 5 5 0 0 2 0 Structure: 4
Special Abilities: ENE, SRCH, ES, SOA

This is what you can produce (if you can afford it) It does 50 damage, alternating with 45 all day long and has more armour. WHy would you use anything else if you want a Hunchback style mech? Plus very litlle danger of missing.

[Black Sunder]

Because you sacrificed any sort of long range firepower for purely close range abilities. Anyone with LRMs and and Artemis would eat you as well as anyone with PPCs and Gauss. If a light mech can get behind you they'll eat you alive because none of your lasers are rear mounted to scare them off.

Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 03:06 AM, said:

I don't need to know jack about the TT rules to know that they are not right for a video game. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the board game functions differently, and therefore has a rule set tailored specifically for a boardgame. Stop crying.

You should take your own advice. The only thing you have done from the start is do just that about the game that mechwarrior comes from and the rules associated with it. PGI has already said they would be sticking as close to the TT rules as possible.

Edited by Black Sunder, 21 December 2011 - 06:07 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Red Beard, on 20 December 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

Problem is, you can't have balance in a video game that is based on TT rules. It isn't even a matter of debate. It just isn't possible.

The balance has already been provided by heat and ammo requirements, and the fact that...

}{avoc, on 21 December 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:

There is NO "balance" issue when everyone has access to the same equipment.

Red Beard... if you don't know even the basics of the game MechWarrior Online has already been said, by the devs, to be based entirely on, then you have no footing to make ANY argument, here. Have a nice day; I knew there was a reason I put you on the ignore list. I really wish our hosts would get these forums squared away and, if I ignore someone's ignorance, it's truly ignored, not still received in email.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@Black Sunder - just the same as the original mech - not saying it is a mech I'd normally drive - except in certain circumstances ie urban or other close quarters. It was merely done to illustrate a point. Obviously I failed.

[Phades]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

@Black Sunder - just the same as the original mech - not saying it is a mech I'd normally drive - except in certain circumstances ie urban or other close quarters. It was merely done to illustrate a point. Obviously I failed.

Unless I missed something, you have 7 tons free, which would allow you to bump the engine to a 250 and keep you from needing to allocate space for 2 of the heat sinks. It still leaves you 2 tons to play with. By using Ferros instead of endo, you are sacrificing 2 tons to play with as well (well 1.5 technically speaking, but you can shunt 1 pt from the head and a little from the legs and you wouldn't really notice the difference).

So, Endo instead and a 5/8 rating you get 4 extra tons and 8 extra critical slots to play with. So you could add 2 more HT sinks and 2 more medium lasers. Standing still you have a 2pt heat buildup and 60 damage per turn for 4 turns without any ill effect or 2 turns while running.

But seriously though, you are just trying to reverse engineer the nova (clan tech) at that point and what is really enabling you to do this is the existence of the double heat sinks and endo steel. IE you are just highlighting the difference between a bad design (IS) versus a good design (clan). Lighter mechs get lasers and missiles. Heavy mechs get cannons. The devs just didn't think about the what and how really when they came up with it (regardless of how iconic the hunchback is).

[Black Sunder]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

@Black Sunder - just the same as the original mech - not saying it is a mech I'd normally drive - except in certain circumstances ie urban or other close quarters. It was merely done to illustrate a point. Obviously I failed.

I see what you did and although it is for urban warfare you are discounting the possibility of a rear assault and you could have also added electronic gear to help you out in such an environment such as a Beagle. The long range comment I made mostly has to do with using Large Lasers or PPCs in the urban area incase you see a mech down the street beyond your laser's range.

As the person above me pointed out, you look like you were recreating the Nova which really needs clan tech to work or a higher tonnage chassis.

[Red Beard]

Kay Wolf, on 21 December 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

The balance has already been provided by heat and ammo requirements, and the fact that...

That's your opinion.

Quote

Red Beard... if you don't know even the basics of the game MechWarrior Online has already been said, by the devs, to be based entirely on, then you have no footing to make ANY argument, here.

I already know all that I need to know. A TT game's rule set do not belong in a video game. If anything, MWO should borrow the ideas of combat from the TT, and apply those in the most reasonable, implied mechanical way. That said, your viewpoint is way out in left field, as you are a jaded veteran of the old sims. I have the good fortune of not having my opinion tainted by the older, inferior MW games.

Quote

I knew there was a reason I put you on the ignore list.

That's funny. You only want to read the opinion of those that agree with your, powerfully biased opinion? Somehow I am not surprised.

Edited by Red Beard, 21 December 2011 - 09:07 AM.

[Phades]

Other designs using a similar tech base will beat it out too at the same tonnage. I have one, even does melee with a hatchet, that would beat it in open field or urban basically every time. On average it would deal 33pts of damage less at point blank range assuming everything hits that is ballistic, but 13 points less if you included physical combat. It moves faster, has jump jets and even carries inferno missiles for energy hogs like that one or for laying down fire to create smoke screens. The on average to hit though would be radically different. Primary weapon needing 7s at mid range (his long), while he would need 11s if i was walking backwards and nearly as fast.

One trick ponies are simply that. Yes if they get to where they need to be, they can be nasty, but they are easy to predict and work around typically.

[MaddMaxx]

Full Customization makes it about "me", Stock, or controlled Customization makes it more about "us", the other Pilots in the Lance.

I like the idea of it being about the Lance's over-all composition, not just about raw firepower.

I am assuming the DEV are going to concern themselves with the "us" factor when all is said and done. imho

Edited by MaddMaxx, 21 December 2011 - 09:18 AM.

[Phades]

MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 09:15 AM, said:

Full Customization makes it about "me", Stock, or controlled Customization makes it more about "us", the other Pilots in the Lance. I am assuming the DEV are going to concern themselves with the "us" factor when all is said and done. imho

With custom designs, it is easier to build a cohesive team. With stock designs you have to cherry pick to get the same effect.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Black Sunder, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

Everyone that is against the full factory level customization, which many people want, is still stuck in the 1v1 mindset instead of thinking of it as a team game. The idea that all the mechs of a certain tonnage become shells for the same weapons is ridiculous. People are not sheep but it seems like alot of people think they are. There are no super loadouts for any mech. There are mechs and counters to those mechs no matter what they are carrying.

Mechs becoming gun bags isn't ridiculous. It happened in previous games. Sure there may be potential counters, but people are very much sheep and run for whatever is OP. My main worry is that unlimited customization facilitates abuse of broken game mechanics. In a perfect world it shouldn't matter, but there is going to be OP weapons. There always are.

Phades, on 21 December 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

Super mechs? No. Plenty of "bad" mechs, well yeah especially on pre-invasion inner sphere designs. Some builds your smartest move early game is to jettison your ammo, which is very dumb at the design level (oh goody, the core design wasted 1.5 tons on a machine gun and ammo, hope the game lasts 200 turns to use it all up hurr durr...). There are many other examples of this in the early designs typically involving small end munition based systems with the only potential exception being the LRM-5.

I think the larger issue will end up being trying to explain why a player can't custom job a machine to their play preference instead of forcing them into a specific machine and variant instead and producing the same end result.

There are many bad TRO designs. However limited customization would allow you to fix most of the glaring flaws. Just not have free reign.

Quote

BV isn't the end all measure of how effective a system platform is. It is a biased system at its core and makes many assumptions, such as wide open killing fields and assumes certain pilot skill ratings which do not translate at all into a real time player piloted system. Is a guass rifle really worth that value in a dense environment where you have blind corners and short lanes of fire? Nope. The higher end ACs on the other hand... The closest thing you could hope for is a rank based matching system carrying player stats and have different control mechanisms in place for the machine factors.

BV has to assume that you pick the right tool for the job. Otherwise it breaks worse if the terrain doesn't match whatever you consider standard. BV is modified by pilot skill. No reason why we can't do that in MWO. Give every player a rating through an elo system. Use the skill rating to modify the BV of your mech just like the you normally do.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

I already know all that I need to know. A TT game's rule set do not belong in a video game. If anything, MWO should borrow the ideas of combat from the TT, and apply those in the most reasonable, implied mechanical way. That said, your viewpoint is way out in left field, as you are a jaded veteran of the old sims. I have the good fortune of not having my opinion tainted by the older, inferior MW games.

Interesting enough there have been plenty of games that directly implement board games rules into video games and are successful. The Baulders gate series for example, and almost any DnD based game is a pretty literal translation of the TT rules. I know it goes the other way too some TT games have taken mechanics straight out of MMORPGs. Its pretty much proven that a TT game's rules can transfer well to a video game, so stop making blanket statements. If you want to argue that the battletech TT rules won't transfer well to a video game you best get to reading them.

[Phades]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:

There are many bad TRO designs. However limited customization would allow you to fix most of the glaring flaws. Just not have free reign.

Depends on the chassis and what is considered limited. For example, the hatchetman would be a lot better if it were a 50 ton mech instead of a 45 ton mech. There are just certain "break points" when using the construction rules that are just "better" than others.

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:

BV has to assume that you pick the right tool for the job. Otherwise it breaks worse if the terrain doesn't match whatever you consider standard. BV is modified by pilot skill. No reason why we can't do that in MWO. Give every player a rating through an elo system. Use the skill rating to modify the BV of your mech just like the you normally do.

Combing the ELO with BV creates other issues, but those are more common to the ELO than just the BV modification. If you disallow anything, but stock, you would have to give up way too much in firepower if you had an off peak play time match against a low ELO team. Also, the ELO ranking makes some assumptions towards play style. If they can't fit their play style, then their effective ELO would be far lower by instituting the handicap. This has to do more with role based play associated with chassis than anything. This doesn't even begin to consider other things like 3 high ELO people matched with a low ELO person and throttling their effective ELO as a result and still stomp all over their more moderate opponents.

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

Its pretty much proven that a TT game's rules can transfer well to a video game, so stop making blanket statements. If you want to argue that the battletech TT rules won't transfer well to a video game you best get to reading them.

It is more of a translation and simplification or adding complexity to where there was simplicity. It never is exactly the same.

Edited by Phades, 21 December 2011 - 09:39 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

I already know all that I need to know. A TT game's rule set do not belong in a video game. If anything, MWO should borrow the ideas of combat from the TT, and apply those in the most reasonable, implied mechanical way. That said, your viewpoint is way out in left field, as you are a jaded veteran of the old sims. I have the good fortune of not having my opinion tainted by the older, inferior MW games.

You do yourself a disservice. Claiming how awesome ignorance is because you're not tainted by knowledge... I don't even know how to describe that without being inflammitory. Red, you make the rest of us Video gamers look dumb with these comments. It's partially why TT players get all riled when you speak, because it sounds like unintelligent people have uneducated ideas about the game, and you represent young videogamehood.

People who are against the TT rules haven't picked them up. They are an outline for a million different possibilities that could happen in Mech on Mech (and other) combat, movement, and environment. They are an awesome, well thought out guidline, complete with extreme minutia for any kind of combat. When some discounts them as useless, and leans upon their own understanding... well that's just terrible. It's like trying to put a building without plans because "I've seen buildings go up before:" I am sure, 100% sure that the TT rules are sparking all kind of ideas in the devolopers. Its impossible not to, once you pick them up.

[guardiandashi]

I would argue that Red is being deliberately ignorant to the point that it becomes a personal flaw by REFUSING to even bother to research what he is arguing against. If we accept that premise then his input becomes worthless as well.

the fact is that as has been mentioned there are many successful games that have gone from electronic formats to pen and paper formats and vise versa.

examples being the balders gate, and various other D&D or advanced D&D titled games, such as pools of radience etc

there are also games that have not worked out as well (in many peoples opinion) such as the DDO game where they essentually took the name and slapped it on a game with only a vague resemblance to the source material.

plus from many other things I have seen some people want to take ALL the ... complexity out of the "meta" game and reduce MWO to a variation of paper rock sizzors where you can INSTANTLY tell what the other side has as soon as you ID their units. I am sorry that is NOT battletech or mechwarrior to me, I do NOT want another mechassault which frankly while a decient to good game was IMO a horrible "battletech" game

[TheRulesLawyer]

Phades, on 21 December 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Depends on the chassis and what is considered limited. For example, the hatchetman would be a lot better if it were a 50 ton mech instead of a 45 ton mech. There are just certain "break points" when using the construction rules that are just "better" than others.

Sure, break points are one of the things they could fix going to a PC. Unfortunately it would also break many TRO designs. However it would be interesting if an engine gives you X amount power and your tonnage varied it, even unused tonnage and expended ammo. I think there may be optional rules to cover some of this. Honestly a lot of the TT to RT conversion issues are addressed in the more advanced rules that people rarely play with.

Quote

Combing the ELO with BV creates other issues, but those are more common to the ELO than just the BV modification. If you disallow anything, but stock, you would have to give up way too much in firepower if you had an off peak play time match against a low ELO team. Also, the ELO ranking makes some assumptions towards play style. If they can't fit their play style, then their effective ELO would be far lower by instituting the handicap. This has to do more with role based play associated with chassis than anything. This doesn't even begin to consider other things like 3 high ELO people matched with a low ELO person and throttling their effective ELO as a result and still stomp all over their more moderate opponents.

Yah ELO isn't perfect, but its the best we have. I've never come across a better overall ranking system. Perhaps it could track Elo per class and have a minimum difference between your min and max scores?

Quote

It is more of a translation and simplification or adding complexity to where there was simplicity. It never is exactly the same.

Some of the TT to video game translations are as close as you can get without actually playing with dice and paper. RPGs tend to the the class with the most adherence to the original rules. Alot of those there are still dice rolls and you can get combat logs that match up to the original TT. Then there are games that literally make an electronic version of the board game (Settlers of Catan, ticket to ride, Carcassone). But yes there is usually some amount of translation. The point is that saying TT rules never work in a video game just isn't true. I expect some translation of the battletech TT rules for sure. We aren't going to be playing a turn based tactical game. It'll be a real time first person sim and that means some stuff just won't work.

[MaddMaxx]

I know how ELO works when running a 1v1 Ladder system, any idea how ELO would be represented in a "Team based" game play environment that includes Lone Wolves?

Q&A 2 is up. Yaahooo! BBL

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

I know how ELO works when running a 1v1 Ladder system, any idea how ELO would be represented in a "Team based" game play environment that includes Lone Wolves?

I've been wondering this too.

[TheRulesLawyer]

MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

I know how ELO works when running a 1v1 Ladder system, any idea how ELO would be represented in a "Team based" game play environment that includes Lone Wolves?

Q&A 2 is up. Yaahooo! BBL

They do it in LoL. Its not as accurate as a individual elo, especially as player numbers go up. Works pretty much the same way there. I don't think individual performance within the match is considered. Just the win or loss.

[Dlardrageth]

MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

I know how ELO works when running a 1v1 Ladder system, any idea how ELO would be represented in a "Team based" game play environment that includes Lone Wolves?

Q&A 2 is up. Yaahooo! BBL

Many more variables, I'd expect. Like one for the classical ELO rating, another for the Mech-specific one of your pilot, yet another for "unit performance" one. (The latter meaning you might be somewhat penalized for having an exceptionally well working lance, but hey, more challenging that way!) Plus "X" others I cannot imagine right now. Now throw all that together and try to get a 12 vs. 12 setup done. So adding up all this individual variables to a set "rating" (modified if you try to join with a whole lance of 4 Mechs) and trying to get 2 balanced teams for a match from that. And the whole thing of course with 2 sets of varaibles, being based 60% on the Mech piloted and 40% on the pilot (I think 60/40 would be a good ratio, only so much a really good pilot can do to overcome unfavourable odds.)

Might take the matchmaker a bit, but I'd rather have it balanced than silly and wait a minute or three, instead of only 10 seconds.