287 replies to this topic

[Alexander Steel]

CyclonerM, on 18 February 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

The problem is, for me, a better "lore simulator" IS a better game for me

I think we went around this before. I can understand that, but I think it's fair to say B-Tech isn't popular enough to fund a game just on the backs of people want the Lore the whole Lore and nothing but the Lore.

[Noesis]

CyclonerM, on 18 February 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

The problem is, for me, a better "lore simulator" IS a better game for me

You'd think that may be the case CM but if you take the time to look at the rulebooks and how these would transfer into an FPS you'd begin to understand why PGI might have implemented things differently.

E.g.

Take ECM, in the rulebooks anyone could fit them and they would essentially reduce target lock times for anyone trying to gain a lock. This possibly an annoying mechnic in itself, but that isn't the design issue that I want to be concerned with. The design issue is the fact that if everyone could fit them, which in an equal opportunities, min/maxing player mentality everyone would then likely fit them as a need to have that piece of equipment. This since no-one would religeously follow the stock build format, and half the game (imho) with MWO is the mechlab.

From a design perspective this would render them obsolete for a need to then having them since everyone would then use them for equal effect, but this then would end up nerfing lights more than say assaults due to the need to have them equipped and the available tonnage that can be used with these respective platforms.

Hence why ECM in MWO has been made specific to certain chassis variants and the more advanced features with ECM that would need it, in combination with other equipment, to allow for other features to work (e.g. stealth armour) have been incorporated more as shared features.

---

When you then consider all the other related aspects of changing rules that are designed for a team orientated, turn-based, dice rolling format to a single player orientated simualtion, real time, twitch (skill) based format, you have to expect that some of the values and mechanics simply have to change in order for them to work in the differing context of MWO as a FPS real-time simulator.

Overall then PGI do use the lore as "precedents", in that they either can match them or use them as an influential guide on how to best design them or they offer relative equivalences to be used in order to make designs relevant in MWO. However, they may have to change things either to ensure they are better balanced for the MWO environment not too disimilar to the BT game or by design have to change the mechanics for them to even be relevant for use with MWO. All with the idea that "funsics" or the need to work towards a fun and balanced game is more important than following everything to the letter as per the BT designs.

So a better "lore simulator" may not be a better game.

Edited by Noesis, 19 February 2015 - 12:40 AM.

[CyclonerM]

You do have a point, but as i often say, lore has a fix for almost anything. The problem is, are most players willing to accept this fix?

You mention ECM. I am not familiar with every single BT rule, as i have never been lucky enough to find anyone who plays in my area (though i know some MWO italian players who do). That would, indeed, be an issue. Same for JJs and OmniPods. However, if this was a lore simulator, only some officers, some with good connections or the best warriors would get to have their 'Mech modified. Most of the 'Mechs in the lore are stock, as you know. Mechlab is fun, but i also find interesting choosing the variant/configuration that suits better my needs, and how each one has its own "soul".

For example, i played MW:LL for a while. There is no mechlab in that game, but to be honest, i rarely felt the need for one. I had my favourite 'Mechs and my favourite variants i often chose, and learning to use best what you have available can be an interesting challenge. It is even more important when making drop decks for competitive drops. I did it only a few times, but trust me, choosing each variant to fit into the drop roster based on the map and your opponent is not an easy task.

Anyway, that kind of restrictions in the mechlab are a great compromise for me. However, now that IS BattleMechs have pratically unlimited, costless, super-easy, no-risk customizability, i wonder how they are thinking to implement Clan BattleMechs, if we ever see them..

Btw, running stock builds avoids most balance issues with min-maxing, but how many would accept it?

I would totally love a system where you have to earn loyalty points or a certain rank to have access to 'Mech modifications, and they have an impact on your economy, 'Mech availability, etc.

Edited by CyclonerM, 19 February 2015 - 04:48 AM.

[Alexander Steel]

ECM is an interesting beast, and in fact the MWO version of it looks nothing like the table top version.

Basically in the Table Top version of the game ECM was the counter to other advanced electronic tech. Artemis, C3, and BAP.

"In Tournament-level gameplay, the use of an ECM suite is to nullify the effects of other electronics, such as missile beacons, active probes, and fire control systems. It can also cut a unit off from a C3 Network. "


It doesn't stop you from using Indirect spotted fire, it doesn't stop units from communicating with each other, it doesn't remove your heads up display, it is the counter to special gizmos introduced in 3050 tech levels to reduce the TTK back to the original B-Tech levels. It also only worked on items in it's radius. ((180 or 150 meteters 6/5 hexes)). The standard versions ((Guardian and Clan)) also had 0 effect on Streaks. Angel ECM ((a much later tech)) would turn streaks to normal dumbfire SRMS.

This is probably the one major issue that design choices before it was released morphed the item into something totally not matching the table top. With the top item being that LRMs work WAY too well compared to the table top. In the table top they require a direct roll to hit the same as any other weapons. While you can Indirect Fire them, that makes the roll to hit harder -2? I believe on 2D6 which is pretty huge. Nothing like the stream of missiles that can't miss you have in the MWO game.

One change leads to another which leads to others Narc is one of the counters to ECM which is the absolute opposite way it works on the Table Top.

Edited by Alexander Steel, 19 February 2015 - 04:59 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Wait. How does Narc work on TT?

Anyway, you see some times some things should have been closer to BT , like ECM.

[Repasy Cooper]

It would be awesome if ECM had a ghost signature mode. I would use that ALL THE TIME in cw.

Imagine being able to make your enemy think a whole army is lined up outside of alpha when it's just one or two mechs... with ecm... Then your allies could bust through beta and suddenly there's two armies on the enemy's radar?

Cue chaos.

[Alexander Steel]

Basically Narc is sort of a group artemis.

The guys with the Narc System fires the weapon at an enemy target. If he hits his Narc Pod sticks to the enemy mech and all of his friends now get the same +2 on the "how many missiles hit" table that you would get if you had an Artemis system on your mech. This isn't a +2 to hit, missiles in the table top required a roll to hit, and then another roll to see how many of the missiles from your launcher hit. So you could fire and hit with an LRM 20 and only hit with 9 missiles or so. You would roll another 2D6 and consult the table, higher was better so a +2 was nice.

Every time somebody hit the unit that was Narced there was a chance the pod would fall off and the bonus would be lost.

Edited by Alexander Steel, 19 February 2015 - 10:03 AM.

[Mao of DC]

To add to what Alexander Steel said. If the section of the mech that the NARC hits is destroyed the Narc automatically fell off.